MANU GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6023/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 February 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the source of payment as being made by the company. Therefore, Section 69C was not applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee made credit card payments of Rs. 611,668. The AO added Rs. 410,532 as unexplained expenditure. The assessee claimed the payment was made by a company in which he is a director.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C is justified when the payment was made by a company in which the assessee is a director.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 01/02/2024Pronounced: 01/02/2024

BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Manu Garg Vs. DCIT C/o Ravi Iron Ltd., 67, Circle -1 Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN No.AARPG6588N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of hearing: 01/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 31.17.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The substantive grievance argued before us relates to the addition of Rs.410532/- u/s. 69C of the Act.

3.

While scrutinizing the return of income the AO noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs.611668/- against credit card bills. The assessee was asked to explain the source.

4.

It was explained that the assessee has made payment of Rs.201136/- only. On receiving no plausible reply for the sum of Rs.410532/-the AO made the addition of the same u/s. 69C of the Act.

5.

Assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that the said amount was paid by the company Land Craft Developers Private Limited in which the assessee is the director. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO who after verification stated that though the expenses were incurred by the assessee but the payment has been made by Land Craft Developers Private Limited yet the CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

6.

After giving a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We are of the considered view that the assessee successfully explained the source of payment of credit card bills amounting to Rs. 410532/- which is the company in which the assessee is a director, therefore, in our humble opinion provisions of section 69C are not at all applicable. The AO is directed to delete the impugned addition. The appeal is allowed on the ground argued before us.

7.

Decision announced in the open court on 01.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →