SYED IZAZUL HAQUE,GUWAHATI` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI

ITA 284/GTY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 August 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all relevant documents to both the AO and CIT(A), which showed the capital balance comprised ancestral property, inherited land and building, loans, and business assets, representing a brought-forward balance. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in treating these as additional evidences when they were available to the AO. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an ITR declaring income of ₹2,16,880 for AY 2014-15. During scrutiny, the AO added ₹1,45,58,220 as unexplained capital introduced, passing an order under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) sustained this addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal and rejecting the submitted evidences as additional evidences.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition of unexplained capital introduced by treating assessee's submitted evidences as "additional evidences" not filed before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(2),Section 142(1),Section 115 BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2019for the A.Y. 2014-

15.02.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Learned CIT (A), upholding the order of Learned AO, wherein the addition of ₹1,45,58,220 was made by the Learned AO by rejecting the documents filed by the assessee by holding the same to be additional evidences while no such documents were filed which were not before the AO. Syed Izazul Haque; A.Y. 2014-15

03.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 09-02-2016 declaring total income of

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 142(2)

All 83 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →