Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arises against an order upholding an addition of Rs. 32,81,250/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's wife's appeal on a similar issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of judicial consistency and to avoid contradictory findings, restored the instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned addition under Section 69 is justified and whether judicial consistency demands restoration of the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
69, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Rajendra Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-170, Sector-27, Ward-3(1), Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUFPS8802B Assessee by: Sh. Shivam Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073070029(1) dated 10.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned assessing authority had framed it’s impugned assessment on 20.12.2018 making section 69 unexplained addition of Rs.32,81,250/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Rajendra Singh 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel has filed the tribunal’s order dated 03.05.2024 in assessee’s wife Smt. Pushpa Joshi’s appeal restoring the very issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication after considering all the relevant facts. That being the case, I hereby adopt judicial consistency and restore the assessee’s instant appeal as well back to the learned Assessing Officer to be contiguously decided in order to avoid mutually contradictory findings. Ordered accordingly.