GUNJA GUPTA,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD -2(1)(5), ORAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 April 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond six years based solely on third-party information without demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material information is invalid. Furthermore, adding an amount already disclosed in the assessee's return constitutes double addition.

What were the facts?

A survey in another person's case revealed that the assessee received accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 4,03,225/- in the guise of commodity trading. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on this third-party information, which was beyond the six-year period.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening assessment beyond six years based on third-party evidence and the legality of making additions on income already disclosed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(1)(a),Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: DR (Physical hearing)
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 24.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH (SMC), AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 98/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gunja Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer 6, Mata Pura Orai, Ward-2(1)(5), Jalaun-285001. Orai-285001. PAN : AOQPG6069K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Department by Sh. Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR (Physical hearing) Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2026 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the the survey u/s. 133(1)(a) of the Act, 1961 was conducted by the team in the case of Smt. Amita Gupta Prop. M/s. Gauri Traders, 357/5, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur, it was observed that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the grab of commodity trading and received cash in lieu of cheque amounting to

ITA No.98/Agr/2026

Rs.4,03,225/- from Prateek Omer Slo Sudha Gupta Prop. PCS Traders who has admitted in his statement. The cash was deposited by Shri Prateek Omer Prop PCS Traders, himself in the bank account of M/s. Gauri Trader Prop. Amita Gupta.

3.

Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi after considering the detailed submission of the assessee ld. CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:-

“01. THAT the CIT(A)/NFAC has failed to appreciate of the fact and written submissions filed by the assessee, ignored the same and dismissed the appeal, which are illegal, bad in law, be set aside. 02. THAT the AO as well as CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs. 4,03,225/- treated as accommodation entry, whereas the fact that the assessee shown the income in her gross received, and net receipt declared by the assessee, the addition made be deleted.

3.

THAT the appellant craves leaves to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that assessment based on third-party evidence (such as documents or statements found during a search of another person) is not valid if it acts as the sole basis for

2 | P a g e

ITA No.98/Agr/2026

addition without corroborative evidence or if the evidence was not provided to the assessee for rebuttal. While statements under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act have evidentiary value, they are not conclusive and cannot automatically bind a third party. Therefore, it is fact that on the basis of third party, the notice issue u/s. u/s.148 and thereafter re-assessment proceedings all are invalid, liable to be quashed. Reference be made in the case of Sapphire Foods India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) [2026]-183 taxmann.com 506 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Maheshwari Coal Benfication & Infrastructured Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 842 (Nagpur- Trib.), Ramesh Chandra vs. DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 1075/Mum/2025 dated 24.04.2025, Awlesh Kumar Singh vs. Union of India (2022) 139 taxmann.com 502.

6.

Ld. AR submitted that section 69A in this case are not applicable, because all the money, deposited in the bank duly appears in the books of account, hence cannot be termed as “unexplained” money, if the source of income is explained, the same cannot be treated as unexplained and added u/s 69A of the Act. The provisions of section 115BBE of the Act would also not be applicable.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.98/Agr/2026

7.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

8.

Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. I observed that survey was conducted u/s 133(1)(a) of the Act in the case of Smt. Anita Gupta Prop. M/s Gauri Traders, Kandpur. Based on the information found in above case, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that assessee has obtained accommodation entries from Sudha Gupta making cheque payment of Rs. 4,03,225/- , Sudha Gupta had admitted in his statement as bogus transaction. Based on the information obtained from Sudha Gupta which was the sole basis for making addition in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, based on the above information available on record the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, I observed that the assessment year under consideration is 2013-14 and the same was reopened u/s 147 of the Act was issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. It is clearly beyond the period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. It is clear fact and record that the case was reopened without there being any clear finding that assessee has not provided all necessary materials for its assessment beyond 6 years. In the similar fact and record of Hon’ble

4 | P a g e

ITA No.98/Agr/2026

Delhi High Court has decided on similar fact in favour of the assessee in the case of Sapphire Foods India Ltd. (supra). Further it is also facts on record that assessee has already disclosed alleged income in her return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. On the basis of information received from 3rd party beyond 6 years without bringing on record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose necessary material for its assessment and also making the addition which is already disclosed in her return of income which clears amount double addition which cannot be made u/s 69A of the Act as made by the Assessing Officer under consideration, therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2026. Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.04.2026 *Santosh, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

ITA No.98/Agr/2026

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →