VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL,BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 107/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's objection to the additional evidence being filed for the first time. It was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to factually verify the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made under section 69 for unexplained investment, which was partially confirmed as cash payment. The assessee submitted additional evidence, a bank statement, to explain the source of the cash payment from earlier withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee explaining the source of cash payment can be considered without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify it?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 17.02.2025Pronounced: 17.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, 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/250/2023-24/1060601030(1) dated 07.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 23.03.2023 made section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.64.94 lacs which stands confirmed only to the extent of cash payment of Rs.10,96,000/- in the lower appellate discussion. Faced with this situation, the assessee has chosen to file its additional evidence, namely bank account statement, explaining the source of said cash payment out of earlier withdrawals from the bank account.

4.

The Revenue’s objection, on the other hand, is that once the foregoing additional evidence is filed for the first time under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, the learned Assessing Officer deserves to be afforded an opportunity to factually verify the same. We thus deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant issue back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities on the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to prove his case. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2025.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →