RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,TINSUKIA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 279/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the amount of ₹6,46,430/- was received from four LIC holders and ₹1,96,000/- from the sale of vehicles. However, the summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the persons who provided the cash for LIC premiums and vehicle sale were not complied with. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the issue required further examination by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to summon these individuals again, examine them, and decide the issue denovo (afresh). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raj Kumar Gupta, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 21.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal was delayed by 568 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹6,46,430/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and ₹1,96,000/- realized from the sale of a vehicle. This arose from cash of ₹10,50,000/- seized from the assessee on 04.03.2021, during the Assam General Election 2021. A warrant of authorization under Section 132A was issued, and the cash was requisitioned. The assessee filed a return of income showing ₹4,91,250/-. The AO made additions after the assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash, partly accepting them. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹6,46,430/- made by the AO under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and confirmed by the CIT(A), is justified? Assessee's contention: The amount of ₹6,45,400/- was received from four persons on account of LIC premium. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the addition of ₹1,96,000/- realized from the sale of vehicles, as confirmed by the CIT(A), is justified? Assessee's contention: The amount of ₹1,96,000/- was received from the sale of cars. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal had to decide whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO regarding the unexplained cash and the sale proceeds of vehicles.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 132A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, AR, Shri Dipak Singh, DR
For Respondent: Shri J.P. Gupta, AR, Shri Dipak Singh, DR
Pronounced: 10.03.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.12.2023 for the AY 2021-22.

2.

At the outset, we observe that the appeal is delayed by 568 days. The assessee has filed the condonation petition explaining the delay in filing the appeal. After taking into account the reasons cited for the delay, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is for genuine and bonafide reasons and consequently the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

The facts in brief are that the cash amount of ₹10,50,000/- was from seized from the assessee by State Surveillance Team on 04.03.2021, after the assessee was intercepted during the course of Assam General Election 2021. Warrant of authorization u/s 132A of the Act was issued and cash was requisitioned on 11.03.2021, from the concerned authority. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income showing total income at ₹4,91,250/-. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were replied by the assessee by submitting the source of cash deposits. The ld. AO finally partly accepted the submission of the assessee. However, the contention of the assessee is that ₹6,45,400/- was received from the four persons on account of LIC premium and ₹1,96,000/- from sale of cars. The contentions of the assessee were not accepted and accordingly addition was made to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2022.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. AO on both the issues.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that though the assessee has submitted that the money was received from 4 individual as LIC premium and also from sale of cars. We note that ₹6,46,430/- was stated to be received from 4 LIC holders, whereas ₹1,96,000/- was stated to be received from sale of vehicle. However, we note that the summons

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →