SUNIL TANEJA ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-63(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1645/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the critical relevance of the assessee's submitted details to the case's outcome. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification, granting the assessee three opportunities to present and prove its case, subject to the condition of doing so at its own risk and responsibility.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunil Taneja Associates, challenged an addition of Rs. 10.85 lakhs treated as unexplained cash credits for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee argued that the deposits belonged to Mr. Ritesh Jain's proprietary concern, providing a bank certificate as evidence. The Revenue contested the admission of this evidence due to its belated nature.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition of Rs. 10.85 lakhs as unexplained cash credits is justifiable, given the assessee's claim that the deposits belong to a third-party proprietary concern, and the admissibility of belated evidence in this regard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 14.02.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060898156(1) in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded herein seek to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 10.85 lakhs made in both the lower proceedings as unexplained cash credits. It has filed the concerned bank’s certificate dated 23.12.2024 that the same in facts represents cash deposits made by eponymous proprietary concern of Mr. Ritesh Jain than the appellant herein who happens to be a partnership firm. 4. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the assessee’s foregoing details are not admissible as evidence since find at this belated stage. It could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee’s foregoing bank statement in fact goes to the root of the matter since it carrying a vital bearing on outcome of the impugned addition. I, therefore, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s the instant sole substantive grievance back to Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication and verification within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →