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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 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 held that once the CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition for investment in immovable properties to 40%, there was no justification for sustaining further ad-hoc additions as unexplained investment under section 69. Such additions cannot be made on an estimation basis.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained investment in immovable properties.

What were the issues?

Whether ad-hoc additions as unexplained investment under section 69 are sustainable when the CIT(Appeals) has already restricted the original addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69

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: 13.02.2025Pronounced: 13.02.2025

ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 281/Agr/2024 for assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 , arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065578219 (1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065589703 (1) both dated 12.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. emerges at the outset that there arises first and foremost legal issue that once the learned CIT(Appeals) has restricted the Assessing Officer’s action treating the asseseee’s investment in purchase of immovable properties amounting to Rs.12.15 lakhs, to the extent of Rs.4,86,020/- i.e., 40%, respectively, there is no reason to sustain adhoc addition as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act . This being the clinching fact emerging from the case file, we are of the considered view that such an addition of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act could not be made on mere estimation basis. We, thus, see merit in assessee’s sole substantive ground which stands allowed in very terms.

4.

There being identical facts involved in the assessee’s latter appeal barring difference in ad-hoc addition amount u/s. 69 of the Act, our foregoing order in shall apply mutatis mutandis in this assessee’s appeal as well. Ordered accordingly.

5.

To sum up, these assessee’s twin appeals & 281/Agr/2024 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: *aks/-/Subodh 2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →