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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2956/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 October 2019AY 2010-1120 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent during the hearing. The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits, providing detailed reasons for its decision. The Tribunal perused the materials on record and found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s findings. Specifically, regarding the cash credits, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had noted that the bayana receipts did not contain complete details of the buyers, such as full addresses or PAN numbers, thus failing to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had sustained the addition of Rs. 61,75,000/- on this basis. Since no new material was presented to the Tribunal to persuade it to take a different view, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was dismissed, with a liberty granted to the assessee to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Goldy Narula, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi. The Assessment Year in question is 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, issuing a notice under Section 148 on 22.09.2011, believing income had escaped assessment due to cash deposits of Rs. 98,53,490/- in the assessee's savings bank account during the Financial Year 2009-10. The assessee failed to file a return within the prescribed time but later filed one on 06.09.2012. Despite multiple notices under Section 142(1) and 142(1)/271(1)(b) requiring details of cash deposits totaling Rs. 98,91,490/-, the assessee did not provide satisfactory explanations or documentary evidence. Consequently, the AO added the entire amount as unexplained income. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 61,75,000/- and deleted the remaining Rs. 37,16,490/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in misunderstanding the facts of the case, as contended by the assessee. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 61,75,000/- pertaining to cash deposited out of advance (bayana) receipts under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits, despite the explanation supported by documents and records, as contended by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) misunderstood the facts and erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 61,75,000/-. The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were out of advance (bayana) receipts and that explanations supported by documents and records were provided. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Ld. Sr. DR, relied upon the order dated 14.03.2013 of the Assessing Officer and the impugned order dated 29.03.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue beyond reliance on the lower authorities' orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b),Section 144,Section 68

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 2010-11. 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. 6,175,000/- which pertained cash deposited out of the Advance (bayana) receipts u/s 69 of ITA, 1961 as unexplained cash deposits, despite the explanation, duly supported by documents and records submitted. Page 1 of 20

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. 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 in assessee’s Saving Bank Account in Axix Bank Ltd., Rohini; amounting to a total of Rs. 98,91,490 was added to the assessee’s returned income. The relevant portion of the Assessment Order is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula.

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula.

[C] Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 14.03.2013. Vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.03.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained addition of Rs. 61,75,000/- out of the aforesaid

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. amount of Rs. 98,91,490/- and deleted the remaining amount of Rs. 37,16,490/-. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. 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 Page 18 of 20

ITA No.- 2956/Del/2016 Mr. Goldy Narula. the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing 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 →