SHELLY BANSAL,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, , MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 976/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)4 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 found that the assessee's denial was corroborated by documentary evidence, including a power of attorney and payment receipts, showing the property was transferred to and payments made by Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Darpan Sharma. As no evidence linked the assessee to the transaction, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,88,800/- under Section 69 as unexplained investment towards property purchase based on information. The assessee denied any involvement in the transaction, stating that the property was transferred to other individuals. The CIT(A) sustained the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 12,88,800/- under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property was justified, given the assessee's denial and production of documentary evidence showing other parties as transferees and payees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 133(6),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 19/07/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 12,88,800/- under Section 69 of the Act.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w. 144B of the Act wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 12,88,800/- being the unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. In this case, the AO was in receipt of information from DDIT, Investigation Mohali that the assessee has made Cash / Bank payment of Rs. 12,88,800/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to impugned assessment year towards purchase of property No. 2518 E 30, Jandpur MP (Sector -123) Sunny Enclave (Residential Plot) Kharar from M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. Basis such 2 information and in absence of response from the assessee to the notice issued under section 133(6), notice under section 148 was issued on 30/03/2021 and thereafter, in response to the notice issued by the AO, the assessee denied the transaction stating that she has not entered into any such transaction or has made any payment to M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. However, the AO rejected the said explanation holding that the assessee has not submitted any proof of denial whereas information received from Investigation Wing was a credible piece of information and therefore a show cause along with draft assessment order was issued to the assessee on 24/03/2022 and in response to the same, the assessee submitted as under: “1. Your notice alleges about the transactions done in plot no. 2518 In Sector 123 of Sunny Enclave, Kharar in the F.Y.2012-13 by me. Whereas, - 2. I am not associated with the said plot in the said financial year of 2012-13. As a proof i have found that this plot was transferred from M/s Bajwa Developers to Mr. Darpan Sharma & Mr. Abhishek Gupta on 24-11-2016 (Thursday AT 4:50:38 PM) in presence of Sub-

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →