ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARI PRAKASH SHAHRAWAT, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sale deeds for agricultural land or the loss on investment. Therefore, these issues were set aside for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) treated an increase in the assessee's capital account and unexplained agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without proper verification of evidence regarding sale of agricultural land and investment loss.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The appellant, Income-tax Officer, Ward 37 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-13, New Delhi qua the Assessment Year 2011-12 on the grounds inter alia that :-
“On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.53,48,590/- and Rs.7,18,804/- on account of income from undisclosed source u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 as the assessee failed to explain source of income.”
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : During scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that in the Statement of Affairs (SOA) as on 31.03.2011, assessee has shown agricultural income at Rs.3,25,000/- but has failed to bring on record any evidence and as such, agricultural income shown in the statement of affairs by the assessee is treated as income from other sources.
AO from the comparison of capital account of the assessee as shown in statement of affairs as on 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2010 as Rs.55,98,590/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively, showing net increase in the capital over the last year amounting to Rs.53,48,590/-. AO tabulated the statement of affairs as under :- “Statement of Affairs as on 31st March 2011 Particulars Amount Particulars Amount Agricultural Income 3,25,000 Loans and advances 33,39,000 Interest on saving Bank A/c 26,079 Investrade Securities India 13,00,000 (P) Ltd. Capital A/c 55,98,590 Jewellery and Ornaments 5,00,000 Less Household Exp. -3,58,519 Canara Bank 2,52,983 Canara Bank Car Loan 5,20,000 Cash in Hand 1,25,295 Motor Car 5,93,872 Total 61,11,150 Total 61,11,150 “Statement of Affairs as on 31st March 2010 Particulars Amount Particulars Amount Agricultural Land Sale 51,91,666 Loans and advances 45,39,000 Agricultural Income 3,0,000 Jewellery and Ornaments 3,00,000 Interest on saving Bank A/c 31,924 Canara Bank 5,87,395 Capital B/f 2,50,000 Cash in Hand 1,72,195 Less Household Exp. -1,75,000 Total 55,98,590 Total 55,98,590
On failure of the assessee to bring on record any evidence, amount of Rs.53,48,590/- is treated as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources by the AO and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.64,18,474/-.
Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The ld. CIT (A) in para 5.3 of the impugned order has recorded that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.51,91,666/- from the sale of agricultural land and the same was added to the capital brought forward of Rs.2,50,000/- and as such, there is no unexplained increase in the capital. However, we are of the considered view that neither the assessee has pleaded the sale deeds in his reply vide which he has received sale proceeds of Rs.51,91,666/- nor the CIT (A) has discussed in the impugned order any such sale deeds to arrive at the conclusion that there is no unexplained increase in the capital of the assessee. So, we are of the considered view that this issue is required to be set aside to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh by bringing on record, if any such sale deeds are there vide which assessee alleged to have received the sale proceeds of Rs.51,91,666/-, by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Similarly, the ld. CIT (A), while deleting the amount of Rs.7,18,804/- on account of loss suffered by the assessee in his investment of Rs.13,00,000/- with Invest Trade Securities India P. Ltd., has not called any remand report from the AO to verify the facts and books of account, nor it is mentioned by ld. CIT (A) in the books of account that he himself has perused the books of account maintained by the assessee. So, this issue is also required to be set aside to ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on this 21st day of December, 2018.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- 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
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026