Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 arose from proceedings initiated under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was made based on cash payments to a searched party, M/s Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was no receipt or supporting evidence to substantiate the impugned addition. The lower authorities relied on alleged information not brought to light. Therefore, the addition made was found to have no merit.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the lower authorities is substantiated by cogent evidence, especially in the absence of a valid receipt or reconciliation of details.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148
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 : 2007-08 Dayaram Sain, Vs Income Tax Officer, R.H. 33, Hig Duplex, Sector-2, Ward-1(2), Rajendra Nagar, Ghaziabad-201005 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUSPS7547Q Assessee by: Sh. Rajkumar Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062977802(1) dated 20.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues at the outset that both the lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s cash payments of Rs.22,00,000/-; made to the searched party M/s Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, which was unearthed during the course of search in the latter’s case leading to initiation of section 148/147 proceedings by the
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. A perusal of the case file reveals that there is not even a receipt alleged to have been signed by either the assessee or recipient delay reconciled with the corresponding admission’s details which could substantiate the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands. All what both the learned lower authorities have done is to go by some alleged information only which has never been light of the day. That being the case, I find no merit in the impugned addition which is hereby deleted in very terms.