RITU BHUTTAN,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ICNOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -31, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1439/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 March 2025AY 2021-22Bench: us.4. That being the case, we first of all note that the alleged agreement extracted at pages 2 to 3 in the Assessment Order had nowhere been signed by either of the parties thereon. The Revenue seeks to buttress the point that the departmental authorities had deciphered the same on the basis of whatsapp chats which formed part of the seized material as a “document” as per Section 2(22AA) of the Act.3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal ruled that since the alleged agreement constituted seized material, the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C(1) and not as a "normal" assessment under Section 143(3). Consequently, the impugned assessment was quashed as unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an assessment order for AY 2021-22, which was based on an alleged unsigned agreement indicating unexplained investments. This agreement was discovered during a search at a third party's premises and was treated as seized material by the Revenue, relying on WhatsApp chats.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment initiated based on material seized during a search should be conducted under Section 143(3) or specifically under Section 153C(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 2(22AA),Section 153C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 21.03.2025

Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Ms. Ritu Bhuttan, Vs DCIT, G-174, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-31, New Delhi-110029 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHXPB2161P Assessee by : Sh. Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1060335406(1) dated 31.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned section 143(3) proceedings/assessment dated 30.12.2022 itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned departmental authorities Ritu Bhuttan had carried out a search in question at the premises of Sh. Parveen K. Jain on 06.01.2021 thereby coming across the assessee’s alleged agreement dated 26.11.2020 indicating unexplained investment(s) forming subject matter of adjudication before us.

4.

That being the case, we first of all note that the alleged agreement extracted at pages 2 to 3 in the Assessment Order had nowhere been signed by either of the parties thereon. The Revenue seeks to buttress the point that the departmental authorities had deciphered the same on the basis of whatsapp chats which formed part of the seized material as a “document” as per section 2(22AA) of the Act.

5.

We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that once the above alleged agreements formed part of the seized material, the impugned “normal” assessment could not be held as sustainable in law since not framed as per the specific provisions of section 153C(1) of the Act. We thus quash the same for this precise reason and the assessee’s all other remaining pleadings stand rendered academic in very terms.

More judgments on Section 153C(1)

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →