DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as they were based on information from public domain and foreign tax jurisdiction, and not on material found during search and seizure operations. The Tribunal also noted that the protective assessment was made prior to substantive assessment under the Black Money Act, rendering it invalid. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The appeals concerned additions made by the AO on the basis of information received from BVI authorities regarding undisclosed foreign bank accounts and assets offshore of the assessee, Ravi Bharadwaj, who was a director and shareholder of a BVI company, Lazare International Group Limited.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO based on offshore information without incriminating material found during search were sustainable. Whether a protective assessment made prior to substantive assessment under the Black Money Act is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143,Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 57,Section 10(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT27 citing39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
- DCIT v. Ashok Kumar Singh3 citing151 Taxmann.com 207 · 2023 · Read judgment
- SURESH K. JAJJOO v. ACIT3 citing105 TTJ 904 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI.
Before: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The Revenue has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 31 [“Ld. CIT (A)”, for short] dated 23.01.2025 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.2232/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14 as lead case to adjudicate the issues under consideration.
Brief facts of the case are, in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short ‘the Act
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.
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 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026