SATYAVIR SINGH CHANDEL HUF,KARNAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2220/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the investments made in FY 2011-12 could not have been treated as unexplained for AY 2013-14. Consequently, the impugned addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order that treated investments in immovable property totaling Rs. 15,80,750/- made during FY 2011-12 as unexplained for AY 2013-14. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal and the case proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether investments made in a prior financial year can be treated as unexplained in a subsequent assessment year under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 02.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satyavir Singh Chandel HUF, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, 361, Sector-8, Karnal, Delhi Haryana-132001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMHS7226L Assessee by: None 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 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074322925(1) dated 11.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side and from a perusal of the facts on record that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s investments in immovable property of Rs.13,08,661/-; as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act which had been actually finalized

4.

This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal is of the considered view that the above impugned investments would not have been treated as unexplained in A.Y. 2013-14 since pertaining to F.Y. 2011-12. The impugned addition is deleted in very terms therefore.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →