NARENDRA SINGH,GB NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the basic issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the deposits.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 53,00,000 on account of RTGS deposits and Rs. 18,69,000 on account of short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) confirmed Rs. 16,41,000 of the additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of RTGS deposits and capital gains were properly examined by the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 30.06.2017.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.3,00,000 and Rs.13,41,000 as unaccounted income of the appellant.
The appellant respectfully submits as under:
2.1. That the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law, not in agreement with the facts and is against the principles of natural justice.
2.2 That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has without going into the facts sustained the addition of Rs.3,00,000 out of addition of Rs.23,00,000 made by the Income Tax Officer as unaccounted income.
2.3 That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has without going into the facts of the case sustained the addition of Rs.13,41,000 out of addition of Rs.30,00,000 made by the Income Tax Officer as unaccounted income.”
In this case, the AO has made addition in the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.53,00,000/- on account of deposits received through RTGS in the bank account of the assessee. The AO further made addition of Rs.18,69,000/- on account of short term capital gains on sale of property.
The ld. CIT(A), Noida has confirmed an amount of Rs.16,41,000/- and deleted the remaining addition. We find that the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the basic issues come up during the assessment proceedings. Both the parties expressed that substantial justice would met if the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for examining the deposits de novo which we find acceptable.
Ergo, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the assessee shall not misuse the opportunity given by the revenue authorities and comply to the notices issued from time to time.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/10/2022.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
