RAJESH KUMAR,MAINPURI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 282/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the explanation for payments made from earlier bank withdrawals solely based on the time gap. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 0.50 Lacs and deleted the remaining amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 4.95 Lacs and purchased a property for Rs. 27.94 Lacs. A significant portion of the payment was made in the current year, sourced from bank withdrawals, business income, and LIC maturity proceeds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation for property payments sourced from earlier bank withdrawals due to a time gap.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 12-06- 2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25-03-2022. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.4 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

The assessee runs a fair price shop and it declared income of Rs.4.95 Lacs. It was noted that the assessee purchased a property for Rs.27.94 Lacs out of which amount of Rs.18.47 Lacs was paid in FY 2011-12 whereas the remaining amount of Rs.7 Lacs was paid in the current year. The same was stated to be sourced out of bank withdrawals, business income and maturity proceeds of LIC. The assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings in the first appeal. The assessee maintained that the payments were made out of earlier bank withdrawals which are detailed on Page No.10 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same by observing that there was gap of more than 80 days / 6 months between withdrawal and payments and therefore, the explanation could not be accepted except for an amount of Rs.3 Lacs since the withdrawals were on the same day. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that there is no alternative usage of bank withdrawals has been brought on record. Merely because the withdrawals were much earlier, the same could not be disbelieved. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we restrict the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.0.50 Lacs and delete the remaining addition.

4.

The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →