NEERAJ AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3559/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition, as the seized documents lacked specific details of the interest expenditure and it remained unsubstantiated during scrutiny. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition, holding that additions based on "dumb documents" are not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 challenged an addition of Rs. 5,65,000/- under section 69C for unexplained interest expenditure. This addition was made by lower authorities based on documents seized during a search/survey operation dated 09.09.2015. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Validity of an addition under section 69C for unexplained interest expenditure when based on unsubstantiated seized documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 27.11.2024Pronounced: 04.12.2024
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 10.06.2024 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-31/10297/2019-20, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 69C addition of unexplained interest expenditure amounting to Rs.5,65,000/- in assessee’s hands going by the documents found/seized during the course of search/survey operation dated 09.09.2015.

4.

Mr. Anand, learned Sr. DR, further takes us to the assessment discussion dated 29.12.2017 at page 2 in para 2 that learned Assessing Officer herein had adopted the corresponding figures of the assessee’s interest payment only for the purpose of making the impugned addition, which deserve to be sustained herein. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions and see no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that contents of the seized documents extracted in the assessment order nowhere throw any light on the corresponding details of the impugned

2 | P a g e interest expenditure nor they have been substantiated during the course of scrutiny.

6.

Faced with this situation, we quote Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) to conclude that the impugned addition based on the foregoing dumb document is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →