Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment was reopened under Section 147 for cash deposits during demonetization. It was later found that the deposits were not in the assessee's personal account but in M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer then made an addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- under Section 69A for other unexplained credit entries received from M/s Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd. and transferred to M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- under Section 69A was rightly made in the assessee's hands, as there was no proof of assessment in M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd. However, it allowed the assessee an opportunity to seek remission if such proof is provided to the JAO.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- made under Section 69A for unexplained credit entries, despite the assessee's inability to provide explanations.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), relating to the Assessment Year 2017- 18.
The sole ground raised by the Revenue reads as under :-
1. Whether the learned CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- made u/s.69A of the income tax, without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not offer any explanations regarding the credit and debit entries made, even though specifically asked for the same?
At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, since the issue involved is purely legal and all the material facts are available on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld. DR.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information alleging cash deposits of Rs.5,50,25,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. However, during reassessment proceedings, it was found that no such cash deposits were made in the assessee’s personal bank account. The alleged deposits pertained to M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd., a separate legal entity, in which the assessee is a director. Accepting this factual position, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on the issue for which notice u/s 148 was issued, but instead made an addition of Rs.1,22,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of credit entries in the assessee’s bank account. The credits of Rs.1,22,50,000/- has been received from M/s. Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd. which were also immediately transferred to M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd. There was nothing on record to show that Rs.1,22,50,000/- has been assessed in the hands of M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt. Ltd. Hence, we hold that the amount has been rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee. In case the assessee could bring the evidence before the JAO to prove that the amount of Rs.1,22,50,000/- has been assessed in the hands of M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt Ltd., JAO shall take it into consideration and allow remission to the assessee to the extent assessed in the hands of M/s Goldenstar Designer Pvt Ltd.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on …18.12.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated ….18.12.2025 *btk आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :