ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AGRA vs. NITIN BANSAL, FIROZABAD

PDF · subscribers

ITA 23/AGR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 February 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that since there was no corroborative material against the assessee to support the additions related to investment or stamp duty evasion, the CIT(A) was correct in reversing the assessment findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared an income of Rs.1 crore from loan transactions, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer estimated an unaccounted loan of Rs.1 crore and stamp duty evasion of Rs.1.60 crore, making twin additions. The CIT(A) reversed these additions due to lack of material evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in reversing the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unaccounted loan and stamp duty evasion due to lack of corroborative material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 10.02.2025Pronounced: 10.02.2025

Appellant by : Sh. Shalender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-16 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048177722(1) dated 22.12.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1) Vs. Nitin Bansal 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that there is hardly any need for us to delve with this relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the assessee as stated to have declared an income of Rs.1 crore from various loan transactions which stood duly accepted by the learned Assessing Officer. A perusal of the assessment order dated 29.12.2018 indicates that the Assessing Officer therefore estimated the assessee’s unaccounted loan of Rs.1 crore as well as evasion of stamp duty thereupon amounting to Rs.1.60 crore to make twin addition in his hands. Learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion has reversed both these additions on the ground that there was no material found or seized or unearthed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, it is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue has come up in appeal before the tribunal.

We are of the considered view in this backdrop that once there was no corroborative material against the assessee either to have actual invested the addition of Rs. 4 crores in question or the stamp duty thereupon Rs.1.6 crores, as the case may be, the CIT(A) herein has rightly reversed the assessment findings. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant substantive ground in very terms.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →