HIMANSHU BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2) RANGE-11, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5658/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable grounds presented by the assessee. However, it held that the updated return filed u/s 139(8A) was invalid as it was filed after the assessment proceedings were completed. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed due to the lack of supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 100 days, attributing it to incorrect advice and family medical issues. The assessee had filed an updated return u/s 139(8A) after the assessment was completed. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on imports and sales turnover where business income was not disclosed.

What were the issues?

Whether the updated return filed under Section 139(8A) after the completion of assessment proceedings is valid? Whether the addition made by the AO is justified in the absence of sufficient evidence to explain business income?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(8A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Mishra, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.05.2025Pronounced: 16.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2021-22 HIMANSHU BHARDWAJ, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), RZ, 882, STREET NO. 05/11, NEW DELHI SAGARPUR NANGAL RAYA, ROOM NO. 356, Delhi – 46 C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (PAN: BRAPB0803J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ganesh Mishra, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064936602(1) order dated 16.05.2024.

2.

At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application for Condonation of Delay supporting with his Affidavit stating therein that the delay was occurred due to incorrect advise given by his Chartered Accountant that no appeal lies against the impugned order, thus causing a delay in taking appropriate legal steps. It was the further contention that the assessee’s father was suffering from nephrolithiasis since April, 2024, which led to removal of kidney during a Nephrectomy surgery on 02.07.2024, and due to this family’s medical/financial condition, the assessee was prevented from seeking proper advice and filing the appeal within the statutory period. In this behalf, copies of medical reports etc. of the assesssee’s father have been placed on record. Hence, it was requested to condone the disputed delay. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

Briefly stated, facts are that asssessee filed return of income on 29.12.2021, declaring total income of Rs.4,40,550/-. The case of the assessee was scrutinized for complete scrutiny through CASS. The AO noted that the assessee made imports to the tune of Rs. 1,20,19,368/- and total sales turnover as per GST was Rs. 1,36,78,507/-. The AO further stated that the assessee failed to disclose any income under the head 'Income from Business' relating to the purchase and sale transactions. The AO issued notices to the assessee to explain the same. As per assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 13,67,850/- @ 10% on total sales turnover of Rs. 1,36,/8,507l- (as per GST return) in the absence of any information and noncompliance from the assessee.

4. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “During appellate proceeding, the assessee filed Balance Sheet, Profit and loss Account, Computation Sheet and submission. The assessee submitted stated that he wrongly filed ITR-1 and the same has been rectified by filing Updated return u/s 139(8A) on 12.01.2023. The assessment in the case of the appellant was completed on 27.12.2022. After going through the Balance Sheet of the appellant, it is noticed that the appellant has furnished Balance Sheet and P&L Account dated 30.12.2022. It is clear from the above that the appellant disclosed his business income only after completion of assessment proceeding. The provision of section 139(8A) of the Act does not allowed any appellant to update any return of income u/s 139(8A) where "any proceeding for assessment or reassessment or re-computation or revision of income under this Act is pending or has been completed for the relevant assessment year". Therefore, the updated return filed u/s 139(8A) by the appellant is invalid in the eyes of law. The appellant also failed to produce any voucher/invoice and other

2 | P a g e evidence to explain gross profit or business income. I have carefully considered the assessment order, statement of facts, submission and other materials on record Thus, on the basis of facts discussed above and in absence of sufficient evidences, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal no. 1 and 2 are dismissed.”

4.

Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. I find that it is an admitted fact that before the lower authorities assessee was unable to produce any voucher/ invoice and other evidence to explain gross profit or business income. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidences, the addition made by the AO was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I affirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on this account and reject the grounds raised

by the assessee.

More judgments on Section 139(8A)

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(8A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →