MANSI GULATI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8816/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 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 noted that the tent house was booked by the assessee's father, Late Shri Narinder Kumar Garg. Since the assessee's name did not appear in the recipient's books for the payment, it was assumed that the father made the remaining payment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arises against an order upholding an addition of Rs. 7.47 lakhs for unexplained expenditure. This expenditure represented payment to M/s Kohli Tent House.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 7.47 lakhs for unexplained expenditure related to a tent house booking made by the assessee's father is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singhal, CA &, Shri Nitin Kumar Rai, Adv
Hearing: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079202819(1), dated 01.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added a sum of Rs.7.47 lakhs as the assessee’s unexplained expenditure in representing payment to M/s Kohli Tent House in the relevant previous year; in assessment order dated 19.03.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact emanating from the case records (page-66) that it was assessee’s father Late Shri Narinder Kumar Garg who had booked the said tent house for Rs.2,36,000/- on 23.11.2017.

The necessary assumption which follows is that Mr. Garg only would have made the impugned remaining payment of Rs.5,11,000/- since the assessee’s name does not appear anywhere in the recipient’s books. The impugned addition of Rs.7.41 lakhs is hereby deleted for this precise reason. Ordered accordingly.

4.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →