SHRI GOLDY NARULA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2955/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 October 2019AY 2009-1021 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and perusing the materials on record, found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order with detailed reasons for the decision. The Tribunal noted that no material was brought before it to persuade it to take a view different from that of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had sustained the addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- because the assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the cash credits, as required by Section 68. The bayana receipts did not contain complete addresses, thus failing to establish the identity of the creditors. Furthermore, not all bayana receipts were furnished. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if approached within the stipulated time.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Goldy Narula, filed an appeal against the order dated 29.03.2016 of the CIT(A)-32, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an assessment order dated 14.03.2013 under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding Rs. 1,01,48,000/- to the assessee's income on account of unexplained cash deposits. This addition was made after issuing a notice under Section 148 on 22.09.2011, as the assessee had not filed a return of income. Despite multiple opportunities and notices under Section 142(1), the assessee failed to provide explanations and supporting documents for the cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- and deleted the remaining Rs. 79,53,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- pertaining to cash deposited out of advance (bayana) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits, despite the assessee providing explanations and documents. (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) misunderstood the facts of the case. - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- by ignoring explanations duly supported by documents and records. Revenue's contentions: - The Revenue, through the Ld. Sr. DR, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue beyond reliance on lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 68,Section 249,Section 250(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

[A]. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in misunderstanding the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- which pertained cash deposited out of the Advance (bayana) u/s 69 of ITA, 1961 as unexplained cash deposits, by ignoring the explanations, duly supported by documents and records submitted. Page 1 of 21

ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. 3. Any other ground before or at the time of hearing.”

[B]. Vide Assessment Order dated 14.03.2013 passed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). In this Assessment Order, cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,01,48,000 in the assessee’s Saving Bank Account in Axix bank Ltd. in Rohini, was added to the assessee’s returned income. The relevant portion of the Assessment Order is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula.

[C] Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition amounting to Rs. 20,51,000/- and deleted the remaining amount of ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. Rs. 79,53,000/- out of the aforesaid addition totaling Rs. 1,01,48,000/-. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula.

[D] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 14.03.2013 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.03.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.03.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing Page 19 of 21

ITA No.- 2955/Del/2016 Goldy Narula. paragraph [C] of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016 of Ld. CIT(A).

[E] In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed.

Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

[F] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/10/19.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →