SYED IZAZUL HAQUE,GUWAHATI` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
142(2), 142(1), 115 BBE, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’ BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
ITA No.284/GTY/2019 (Assessment Year:2014-15) ITO, Ward 3(4), Guwahati Syed Izazul Haque Aaykar Bhavan, G.S Road, House No.21, Near DarandaMaszid, panjabari Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati Vs. Guwahati-781037, Assam PIN-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AEDPH2934M Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR Revenue by : Shri Kausik Ray, DR Date of hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.08.2025
O R D E R 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.
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.
In theAppellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the evidences filed stating the same to be additional evidences and thus, sustained the order of the Learned AO. Though, the learned CIT (A) at page number 4 extracted the reply submitted by the assessee wherein it was submitted that the brought forward capital balance of ₹1,45,28,344, which was represented by certain assets, mainly Ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans and advances and certain business assets. It was also submitted that all the
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that in this case the assessee has furnished before the AO as well as before the Learned CIT (A) the complete set of documents, evidences, evidencing that brought forward capital balance was represented by certain assets, mainly ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans advances and certain business assets. We note that the learned CIT (A) extracted the reply of the assessee on page number 4 and 5 of the appellate order.We note that the opening balance of capital was ₹1,45,28,344/-, the net surplus for the year of ₹29,876/- (Income ₹216876/- less drawing of ₹1,87,000/-) was added to arrive the closing balance of ₹1,45,58,220/-.We note that despite the assessee furnishing all the evidences, the ld. AO passed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The AO passed the said order despite the fact that assessee furnished all the documents of the property showing ownership in his land and flats which were acquired by way of inheritance in 1995 upon the death of assessee ‘s father and by way of allotment acquired through a development agreement with the builder. We also note that there was no material before the ld. AO to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee introduced capital during the previous year under assessment while the facts evidences on record showed that the assessee had brought forward balance from the preceding financial year and during the year only added the profit of ₹2,16,876 as has reduced by personal drawing of rupees ₹1,87,000/-. Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) suffered from various anomalies and deficiencies as the appellate authority has failed to take into account all these evidences on finding that these
In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANOMOHAN DAS) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 26.08.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati
