SUMER SINGH RANA,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CC-31, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4682/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee's claim for administrative and routine expenses was not entirely disputable, it was not proven to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Therefore, a lump sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was disallowed as just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of business expenditure amounting to Rs. 30,50,518/-. The lower authorities disallowed the entire claim, arguing the assessee did not carry out actual business.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of business expenditure was justified, and if not, what portion of the expenditure should be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-30, New Delhi’s, order in Appeal No. Appeal No.: 10022/2016-17, dated 08.06.2022 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s/Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 1336 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

ITA 4682/DEL/2026 SUMER SINGH RANA

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive issue is that both the learned Lower

appellate authorities have disallowed his claims involving business

expenditure amounting to Rs.30,50,518/- in assessment order as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, the learned departmental representative

vehemently argues that given the fact that the assessee does not appear to

have carried out any actual business in the relevant previous year, it is not entitled to claim the impugned expenditure that has rightly disallowed in

lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute that the assessee’s

impugned claim(s) involves basic administrative and routine expenses like

staff salary and other heads which could not be altogether held as not allowable although it has not been able to plead and prove the same to entire satisfaction of the both the learned lower authorities.

5.

Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate to disallow a lump

sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs only in the assessee’s hands as just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee

gets relief of Rs.27,50,518/- in other words. Necessary computation shall

follow as per law.

6.

The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th July, 2026. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ

ITA 4682/DEL/2026 SUMER SINGH RANA

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →