PARDEEP SINGH BHANDARI,KARAMPURA vs. ITO WARD 41(5) NEW DELHI, ITO,DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5206/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 April 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the explanation for the credit card expenditure in his remand report. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investments was not justified and ordered its deletion.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 20,84,760/- for unexplained credit card expenditure, treated as unexplained investments, made by the lower authorities for AY 2011-12 under Sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, in a remand report, subsequently accepted that the expenditure was duly explained.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition for unexplained credit card expenditure can be sustained when the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's explanation in a remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 21.04.2025Pronounced: 21.04.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250-2024-25/1068693608(1) dated 13.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

So far as the assessee’s sole substantive ground herein challenging both the lower authorities’ action making unexplained investments addition of Rs. 20,84,760/- representing credit card expenditure is concerned, it is noticed during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had fairly accepted in his remand report dated 27.6.2023 (Page no. 27-28 in the paper book) that the same stands duly explained by the appellant / assessee.

2 4. This being the clinching fact emerging from the case file, I hereby quote Smt. B. Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) and CIT v .D. M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karn)(HC) to delete the addition in dispute, in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →