JAGMOHAN SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 70(1), DELHI

ITA 5069/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2017-1816 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that money collected by a company cannot be assessed in the hands of its director as unexplained money. If an addition is to be made, it should be in the hands of the company, not the director.

What were the facts?

The assessee was appointed as a manager in IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited, a company involved in real estate. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 59,18,00,000 under Section 69A, treating money received by the company from investors as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee, who was a director.

What were the issues?

Whether money received by a company can be taxed as unexplained money in the hands of its director. Whether assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid without proper application of mind and affording natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 31.08.2024 for the A.Y's 2015-16 to 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of its appeal :- “1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10288583 has erred in passing order dtd. 30.05.2023 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

2.

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →