MADAN ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1060/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 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 condoned a three-day delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the bank statements and certificates, the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had explained the source of the loan and the addition was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 35 lacs to their total income. The addition was made by the AO on the grounds that the assessee failed to explain the source of a loan. The assessee claimed a bank error in reflecting the entry.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO is sustainable when the assessee provides documentary evidence to explain the source of a loan, despite a potential bank error in transaction recording.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 26.03.2025Pronounced: 21.04.2025

the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 14.08.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by three days. The assessee has filed an application for A.Y.2012-13 2 condonation of delay wherein he has pointed out that if period of communication is being calculated from the date of passing the order till it was served upon the assessee, then there is no delay. Considering the explanation of the assessee, we condone the delay of three days and proceed the appeal on merit.

3.

Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal but his solitary grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.35 lacs to the total income of the assessee.

4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The above addition is being made by the AO on the ground that assessee failed to explain source of loan of Rs.35 lacs to one Shri Rajesh Kumar. The stand of the assessee is that bank has committed an error by reflecting entry on 20.04.2011 of Rs.35 lacs as given to Shri Madan Arora. In order to explain this ambiguity, assessee has submitted Bank Certificate from ICICI Bank wherein Shri Rajesh Kumar is maintaining a Saving Bank Account. The ICICI Bank has categorically issued a certificate exhibiting A.Y.2012-13 3 that on 20.04.2011, Rs.35 lacs has been credited to this account from HDFC Account. The assessee has placed on record copy of his HDFC account from where a sum of Rs.35 lacs has been debited on 20.04.2011 and RTGS was issued to Shri Madan Arora. This was the mistake committed by the HDFC Bank because there were two RTGS, one of Rs.10 lacs which was in the name of Shri Madan Arora and other ought to be in the name of Shri Rajesh Kumar. Due to this ambiguity, the addition has been made.

5. On due consideration of Bank Statement of the assessee as well as certificate of ICICI Bank of the recipient, we are satisfied that assessee has explained the source of loan given to Shri Rajesh Kumar and no addition is sustainable to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced 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 →