FIROZ PASHA,GAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination or provide a detailed discussion as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh and appropriate adjudication, with the onus on the taxpayer to present relevant facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which upheld an addition of Rs. 29.32 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69 for immovable properties in AY 2012-13. The lower authorities found the assessee made this investment in twin immovable properties during the relevant financial year.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 was valid when the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the appeal as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69,Section 250(6)

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 Sushil Kumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.11.2024Pronounced: 13.11.2024

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058320219(1), dated 29.11.2023 of the learned CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (INFAC), Delhi, in appeal no. CIT(A), Ghaziabad/11764/2019-20 in proceedings u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short the “Act”.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 29.32 lakhs in assessee’s hands. Mr. Sharma vehemently argues in reiterating the Revenue’s stand that the assessee had been duly found to have made the impugned investment in twin immovable properties purchased in the relevant financial year 2011-12.

3. I next note that the learned Assessing Officer in detailed discussion at page 3 in para 3.4 has tabulated the assessee’s impugned twin investment, wherein it emerges that he had invested a sum of Rs. 29.32 lakh in the relevant financial year whereas the learned CIT(Appeals) in lower appellate findings in para 5.4 pages 6 & 7 have neither framed any point of determination nor there is any detailed discussion note there from, as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Faced with this situation, rather in the interest of natural justice, it is deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(Appeals) for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it shall be taxpayer’s responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential hearing proceedings.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in very terms.

Order pronounced in open court on 13.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →