SHAKTI RANJAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 33/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the amounts were advance received for expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of the two companies. Based on this, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee received amounts from two private limited companies where they were a director, categorized as advances against salary. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these amounts as income. The assessee contended these were advances for expenses incurred on behalf of the companies.

What were the issues?

Whether the amounts received by the assessee from related companies were advances against salary or for expenses incurred on behalf of the companies, and if the disallowance by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25/02/2026Pronounced: 25/02/2026

Shakti Ranjan Dash, DCIT, Circle-1(1), Aayakar C-111, Basanta Park, Forest Park, Bhawan, Bhubaneswar. Vs. Bhubaneswar. PAN No.AEOPD 6102 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv. Department represented by Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal Nos. NFAC/2012-13/10063353 and NFAC/2013-14/10071093, both dated 10/11/2025 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, respectively.

2.

Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee had received Rs.7,00,000/- from Anmol Resources Pvt Ltd., a concern, in which the assessee was a director and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Anmol Mines Pvt Ltd., where the assessee was a director. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.2,80,000/- out of the amount received from Anmol Resources Pvt Ltd., and entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- received from Anmol Mines Pvt Ltd. It was the further submission that similarly for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee had received Rs.5,40,000/- from Anmol Resources Pvt Ltd., and Rs.1,30,000/- from Anmol Mines Pvt Ltd., and the Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs.3,00,000/- out of the receipts from Anmol Resources Pvt Ltd., and entire amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from Anmol Mines Pvt Ltd., It was the submission that the Assessing Officer took the stand that the assessee has shown the amounts were received as advance against salary for the assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15 and the assessee has not shown any salary income. It was the submission that these were basically advance received from the said two companies for expenses. In regard to expenses, it was the submission that the amounts were incurred by the assessee on behalf of two companies. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

4.

In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not provided any details before the AO and ld CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the nominal nature of the addition as also the clear admission by the assessee that these are advances for the expenses made by the assessee on behalf of two companies, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →