ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI vs. ROWENA SHARMA,, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 126/DEL/2005Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 202613 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

In IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the remand by the Tribunal constituted a "mandated by a cross-direction" exception to the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars 5 & 9 of 2024. The Tribunal found that the tax effect involved was less than the prescribed Rs. 60 lakhs and accordingly dismissed the appeal. For IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh re-examination of the entire issues concerning investments made in bank FDRs, etc. The Tribunal noted that both parties reiterated their stands and that a fresh adjudication of genuineness and creditworthiness was required to meet the larger interest of justice and comply with the High Court's remand directions. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 417/Del/2004 and 126/Del/2005 were filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the block period 01.04.1987 to 08.05.1997. These appeals involved proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first appeal, IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004, concerned Shri Pradyuman Kumar Sharma, with a sole addition of Rs. 88,66,426/-. The second appeal, IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005, concerned L/H Mrs. Rowena Sharma and involved an addition of Rs. 1,85,55,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted investment in shares. Both appeals were before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for a second round of proceedings, following a remand by the jurisdictional High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004 of the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect involved is less than the prescribed threshold of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and whether the exception for "mandated by a cross-direction" applies. - Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied reliance on CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for tax effect. - Revenue's contention: The case falls under the exception in clause 3.1 of CBDT Circulars 5 & 9 of 2024, as it involves a "mandated by a cross-direction" due to a remand by the Tribunal. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,55,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted investment in shares in the case of L/H Mrs. Rowena Sharma. - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A)'s action granting relief regarding investments made in bank FDRs etc. is correct, and the issues of genuineness and creditworthiness require adjudication afresh. - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition is erroneous and not tenable on facts and in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Ms. Lalita Kumari, CIT DR
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004 Assessment Year: 01.04.1987 to 08-05-1997

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Pradyuman Kumar Sharma, Central Circle-17, S-32, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Part-I, New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABIPS8092F

IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005 Assessment Year: 01.04.1987 to 08-05-1997

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs L/H Mrs. Rowena Sharma, Tax W/o Shri P.K.Sharma, Central Circle-13(1), S-32, G.K.-1, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAUPS9634C

Assessee by: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Lalita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 02.07.2026 ORDER These Revenue’s twin appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 417/Del/2004 & IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005; involving that as many assessee’s herein i.e., Ms. Rowena Sharma and Shri Pradyuman Kumar Sharma, for block period 01.04.1987- 08.05.1997, arise against Commissioner of Income

2 Tax (Appeals)-II (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), New Delhi Order Nos. DEL/CITA2/64/2002-03 & DEL/CIT(A)-II/02-03/71 dated 30.09.2004 & 31.12.2004, involving proceedings u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’, respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

We advert to the Revenue’s former appeal IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004 in case of Shri Pradyuman Kumar Sharma. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the sole addition amount herein is that of Rs. 88,66,426/-. The assessee’s case before us is that the relevant tax effect involved is less that prescribed of Rs. 60 lakhs going by the CBDT’s latest circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 . The Revenue at this stage quotes the CBDT’s circular Nos. 5 & 9 of 2024 dated 15.03- 17.03.2024, respectively that the case herein very well comes as an exception as per clause 3.1 since involving the category of “Where mandated by a cross-direction”. We are of the considered view that merely because their lordships have remanded the matter herein in its ta appeal, ITA No. 1222/Del/2018 on 11.02.2025 for the tribunal’s afresh apt adjudication, the same could not be termed as an instance of that “mandated by a Court’s-directions”. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant appeal IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004 in light of the CBDT’s aforesaid circular since involving less than the prescribed tax effect of Rs. 60lakhs. Ordered accordingly.

3 3. The Revenue’s latter appeal IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005 raises the following substantive grounds: “That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.

1.

CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,55,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted investment in shares.

2.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.

3.

That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

4.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

4.

It next transpires with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this is the “second” round of proceedings between the parties before the tribunal in furtherance to hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s judgement dated 11.02.2025 in Revenue’s Tax Appeal ITA No. 1222/Del/2018 remanding the matter; as under:

5.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the correctness of the learned CIT(A) action granting relief to the assessee regarding investments made in bank FDRs etc. It is in this clinching factual backdrop that we are of the considered view that larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned Assessing Officer

13 re-examines the entire issue(s) canvassed herein afresh so as to do complete justice between the parties. Learned counsel representing the assessee is fairly support as well that the issue(s) of both genuineness as well as creditworthiness herein require to be adjudicated afresh so as to ensure effective compliance of their lordship’s aforesaid remand directions. We thus restore the Revenue’s appeal IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005 back to the learned Assessing Officer subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the entire case within three effective opportunities at her own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This Revenue’s former appeal IT(SS)A No. 417/Del/2004 is dismissed and latter appeal No. IT(SS)A No. 126/Del/2005 is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →