ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN, ASSAM

ITA 182/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 September 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the dispute, as per the demand notice issued u/s 156 of the Act, was Rs. 43,79,124/-, which is less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as stipulated in Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect mentioned by the Revenue in Form No. 36 (Rs. 77,80,900/-) was inconsistent with the demand notice. Since the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on maintainability grounds due to the low tax effect, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee, which was in support of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (ACIT, CC-1, Guwahati) appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-Central NER, Guwahati, dated 30.03.2025, which deleted an addition of Rs. 99,50,000/- made to the income of the assessee, Anil Kumar Jain, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The addition was based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.12.2018, an Agreement of Sale dated 24.12.2018, and money receipts found in seized documents. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 1,03,35,610/-. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT (I.T.A. No. 182/GTY/2025) with a stated tax effect of Rs. 77,80,900/-. The assessee filed a cross-objection (CO No. 08/GTY/2026).

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer which was based on information contained in Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.12.2018, Agreement of Sale dated 24.12.2018 and Money receipts that formed part of the seized document bearing ID Mark "TRJSP-02" (Section 69 of the Act). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without duly appreciating that the Assessing Officer's conclusion was supported by independent corroborative evidence establishing the modus operandi of the case. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without duly appreciating the fact that the sale agreement for the said land was executed on 24.12.2018 for Rs.1,40,00,000/- [Rs.2,40,00,000/- minus Rs.1,00,00,000/-] thereby affirming the sanctity of the MoU signed on 20.12.2018 to draw an agreement to sell, wherein the assessee agreed not to disclose the differential amount of Rs.1 Crore to any other person. 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the cash payment of Rs. 13,70,000/- as a natural transaction for litigation expenses, despite the fact that agreement for making such payment is not reflected either in the Memorandum of Understanding OR in the sale agreement. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99,50,000/-. The addition was based on seized documents (MoU, Sale Agreement, Money Receipts) and supported by corroborative evidence. The Revenue argued that the sale agreement affirmed the sanctity of the MoU and indicated a differential amount of Rs. 1 Crore was not to be disclosed. The Revenue also argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating a cash payment of Rs. 13,70,000/- as litigation expenses when no agreement for such payment was reflected in the MoU or sale agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: GUWAHATI

Before: Shri Laxmi Prasad SahuShri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 182/GTY/2025
CO No. 08/GTY/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue and the cross objection filled by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central NER, Guwahat

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →