Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, had deposited cash and had non-cash deposit entries in their bank account in relevant financial years, leading to the reopening of cases. The revenue's sole ground of appeal was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting an addition based on fabricated additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings, which were also mentioned in other years' appeals, indicated that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. The AO's contention of non-submission of credible documents was found incorrect as the CIT(A) confirmed the documents were uploaded during assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting additional evidence provided by the assessee and deleting additions made by the AO based on such evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
order dated 03.06.2024 & 04.06.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065376729(1)/ 1065352750(1)/ 1065353813(1)/ 1065375172(1) arising out of the different order dated 30.03.2022 & 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for AYs:
2014-15 to 2017-18.
These appeals were heard together and have involved common issue and questions of facts and law thus are disposed of together. to 4048, 3977/Del/2024 Indraj 3. At the outset, the Ld. DR pointed out about the delay in filing of the appeal for which we find that the delay is not of any substantial period and the same is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing.
The only ground asserted by the revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on fabricated additional evidence which was not furnished by the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings. The confirmation produced by the assessee as additional evidence before ld. CIT(A) should not have been accepted. The issue involves is undisclosed investment under Section 69A of the Act.
The assessee is an individual and the cases were reopened being a non- return filing case and assessee had deposited cash and there was non cash deposit entries in the bank account in relevant FY.
The Ld. CIT(A) observes in para 6.6 of the impugned order for AY 2017-18 that assessee had provided explanation/justification along with documentary evidence in support of non cash credit entry and cash credit entries during assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings and AO has not brought any specific adverse findings during the assessment to 4048, 3977/Del/2024 Indraj proceedings as well as remand proceedings upon explanation /justification along with documentary evidences in support of non cash credit entries and cash credit entries. In fact, AO’s contention of non submission of credible documents during assessment was found incorrect as Ld. CIT(A) had found all documents were uploaded by the assessee in the assessment proceedings and in fact there is no additional evidence submitted during the course of appellate proceedings.
In light of these observations of Ld. CIT(A) which are similarly mentioned in para 6.6 of impugned order of other years of appeals also, ground as raised by the revenue has no substance. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.12.2025