Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The appeals challenge the CIT(A)'s reversal of assessment findings regarding cash deposits and the consequential direction for them to be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A and under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee remained ex-parte during the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the cash deposits as business income. The CIT(A)'s enhancement, which sought to change the head of income, was found to be without merit, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was reversed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in enhancing the assessment by changing the head of income from business income to unexplained money for cash deposits, contrary to the Assessing Officer's finding and established legal precedents.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 147, 144, 251(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals in & 270/Agr./2024 arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065273316(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065226188(1) order dated 29.05.2024 and 30.05.2024, for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
& 270/Agr./2024 Mohammad Amin 3. It transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance in both the instant appeal challenges the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion(s) not only reversing assessment findings assessing his cash deposits; involving varying sums, as business income in capital trade etc. as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act but also his consequential directions that the same ought to be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act.
Mr. Srivastava vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)’s impugned identical lower appellate discussion has rightly invoked section 251(1)(a) enhancement in the given facts involved herein.
We find no merit to accept the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. This is for the precise reason that once the Assessing Officer’s identical assessment discussion had treated the assessee’s cash deposits in both these assessment years as his business income liable to be assessed @8%, the learned CIT(A)’s enhancement could not have changed the said head income itself in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR
Both these assessee’s appeals & 270/Del/2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2025.