MEENAKSHI GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-35(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4710/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons and proper approval. The addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained income was also confirmed, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2012-13, challenging the reopening of assessment and an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs. The addition was made on account of an amount transferred to the assessee's bank account from M/s. Oxygen Projects Ltd., which was identified as an accommodation entry provider.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the reopening proceedings and the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained income from an alleged accommodation entry provider.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.01.2025Pronounced: 06.01.2025

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Meenakshi Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o- Vipin Jain & Associates Ward-35(6), Chartered Accounts Delhi (counsel), Flat No. 915, 9th Floor, Indraprakash Building 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN :AAHPG4320J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vipin Jain, FCA Department by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.01.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060724474(1), dated 09.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening for want of valid reasons recorded as well as due approval under section 151 of the Act, learned departmental representative has invited the undersigned’s attention to pages 17 and 18 of the paper-book that the Assessing Officer herein had strictly gone by the corresponding tangible material whilst setting into motion the section 148/147 proceedings. He next takes the undersigned to the prescribed authority’s approval at pages 19 to 20 indicating due application of mind as well. These assessee’s legal grounds are declined therefore.

4.

The latter substantive issue between the parties i.e. correctness of the impugned addition of Rs.25 lakhs treated as unexplained/undisclosed income, of the assessee in the course of assessment framed on 23rd December, 2019, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

5.

The Revenue has invited the tribunal’s attention to the case records which sufficiently prove that the assessee had got an amount of Rs.25 lakhs transferred in her bank account from one entity M/s. Oxygen Projects Ltd. which was found to be an accommodation entry provider as per the department’s search

2 | P a g e action as well as the statement of it’s authorized person which has been discussed in the reopening reasons.

6.

Coupled with this, even the learned Assessing Officer appears to have issued section 133(6) notice to M/s. Oxygen Projects Ltd. who failed to respond. The assessee has also not proved genuineness, creditworthiness of the said entity all along. I thus quote Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) to conclude that learned lower authorities herein have rightly added the impugned unsecured loans of Rs.25 lakhs in assessee’s hands. Ordered accordingly.

7.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →