Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 4,66,179/- made by the lower authorities as unexplained investment under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE, relating to an investment with M/s Bhutani Infra & Associates. The assessee was proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf.
Held
The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned addition and deleted it. It held that the lower authorities failed to prove any cash investment by the assessee and that an investment from past accumulated savings could not be ruled out given the assessee's socio-economic status.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for unexplained investment under Section 69B was sustainable when the Revenue failed to provide proof of investment and the assessee's socio-economic status suggested the possibility of past accumulated savings.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69B, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Anil Kataria, Vs Income Tax Officer, 18, Nehru Nagar, Mawana Road, Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 Meerut-250002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABMPK3863G Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1080364066(1) dated 04.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have added sum of Rs.4,66,179/- as the assessee’s unexplained investment u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made with M/s Bhutani Infra & Associates in assessment order dated 31.03.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Anil Kataria 4. The Revenue vehemently argues in support of the impugned addition that the same deserves to be very much upheld since made on account of the assessee’s failure to explain the source thereof all along.
This tribunal has given it’s thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. No merit is found in the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that not only the learned lower authorities have failed to prove any such cash investment made at the assessee’s behest with M/s Bhutani Infra by filing even a receipt thereof but also such an investment made from past accumulated savings keeping in mind his socio economic status could be altogether ruled out as well. It is therefore concluded that the impugned addition is not sustainable in the assessee’s hands in very terms. Deleted accordingly.