MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2331/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the amounts were small and there is no presumption that individuals with low income cannot have small savings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and decided the issue concerning the additions for unexplained deposits in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

Assessment orders for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3), with the AO making additions for unexplained bank deposits of Rs. 1,08,500/- and Rs. 2,61,000/- respectively under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee's claim that these were contributions from his father and brother, supported by affidavits, was rejected by the lower authorities on grounds of low income of contributors or lack of detailed source.

What were the issues?

Confirmation of additions for unexplained deposits into bank accounts under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE and charging of interest under sections 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA, Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.02.2024

(PAN : AAAPJ0445J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date of Order : 28.02.2024

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (Appeals)-28, New Delhi both dated 20.06.2023 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has taken the following common grounds of appeal except the difference in amount :-

2 & 2332/Del/2023 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities have erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,08,500/- & Rs.2,61,000/- for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively on account of unexplained deposits into back accounts under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities have erred in charging interest u/s 234A & interest u/s 234B. The action of the authorities are wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessment order was framed in this case under section 153A r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). AO made various additions.

4.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) granted substantial relief but he sustained the addition on account of unexplained deposits into bank amounting to Rs.1,08,500/- and Rs.2,61,000/- for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19.

5.

Assessee’s plea in this regard was that assessee has filed affidavit from his father and brother contributing this amount to the assessee. But this plea was not accepted on the ground that they have low income or that source of income is not given in detail. amount involved is very small but there is no presumption that the people having low income cannot have small savings. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of February, 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 →