MEENU GOEL,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1286/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed she was never confronted regarding the source of the jewellery and the CIT(A) improperly dismissed evidence. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO, directing the assessee to provide necessary details of the jewellery's source and the AO to decide the case after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 45,02,050/- under Section 69A for unexplained silver jewellery (coins and bricks) found in a locker, which the assessee claimed was inherited and gifted without furnishing evidence to the AO. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, rejecting affidavits submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings under Rule 46A as they were not produced before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 69A for unexplained silver jewellery was justified, and the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Advocate, Shri Ansual Gondala, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Hearing: 02.04.2024

per law, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →