Loading judgment…
Facts
Praveen Kumar Gupta and Munni Lal, partners in M/s Nonand Rai Bhola Nath, were subjected to search proceedings that led to additions of undisclosed rental income and cash deposits. The assessees argued that these items were already assessed in the firm's hands, leading to double taxation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the partners' unexplained income and assets were not part of the settlement. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit for undisclosed rental income and cash deposits. A lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, was granted to each assessee, with the condition that it should not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made to the partners' income were already covered by the firm's assessment, leading to double taxation? Whether telescoping benefit should be granted for undisclosed income and cash deposits?
Sections Cited
153A, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
ORDER Per Bench:
The instant batch of fourteen cases pertains to the twin assessees/appellants herein namely, Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Munni Lal. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
S l. N o. ITA N o s. A.Y . Ap pe llant Re spon den t Orde r pa s se d ag a in s t Pro cee d ing s u / s 1- 7 423 1 t o 201 2 -13 Pra veen AC IT C IT (A ) -2 6, Ne w D e lh i 153A r . w.s . 423 7 /D e l/2 02 5 To Ku ma r Gu pt a In D I N & or der N os . 143 (3) 201 8 -19 ITB A /AP L /M /250 / 20 24 - 25 /1 074 55 625 9 (1 ) , 107 45 560 74 (1 ) , 107 45 554 22 (1 ) , 107 45 552 36 (1 ) , 107 45 550 89 (1 ) , 107 45 549 23 (1 ) & 107 45 547 34 (1 ) D ate d : 13 .0 3. 202 5 8- 14 423 8 t o 201 2 -13 Munn i L a l AC IT C IT (A ) -2 6, Ne w D e lh i 153A r . w. s. 424 4 /D e l/2 02 5 To In D I N & or der N os . 143 (3) 201 8 -19 ITB A /AP L /M /250 / 20 24 -2 5 /1 07 506 21 44 (1 ), 107 50 619 28 (1 ) , 107 50 617 39 (1 ) , 107 50 614 49 (1 ) , 107 50 603 81 (1 ) , 107 50 602 56 (1 ) & 107 50 601 63 (1 ) D ate d : 15 .0 3. 202 5
Heard both these assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both these assessees as well as department that there arise common/identical issues in all these fourteen cases for the tribunal’s apt adjudication. There to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal is no dispute between the parties that these twin assessees Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Munni Lal happen to be partners in a firm namely M/s Nonand Rai Bhola Nath. And that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 02.11.2017 wherein it came across the corresponding specific seized material inter alia rent agreements as well as cash deposits which led to initiation of section 153A proceedings finally culminating in addition(s) of undisclosed rental income as well as the corresponding cash deposits; involving varying sums, which stand upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Learned counsel’s first and foremost argument in this factual backdrop is that the cash deposits added herein had infact been duly assessed in the above partnership firm’s hands in light of the Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 10.03.2023. His case therefore is that both these assessees have been assessed twice i.e. in the firm(s) case as well as it’s partners before us.
Learned CIT-DR on the other hand takes us to para 8 in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in has to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal made it clear that above partners unexplained income as well as assets etc. nowhere formed subject matter of settlement. This is indeed coupled with the fact that we sought the learned counsel’s response to get the impugned sum(s) reconciled with the partnership firms’ partner’s ledgers which have nowhere seen light of the day. We thus reject the assessees instant first and foremost arguments in very terms.
Next comes equally important aspect of the quantification of the impugned additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the lower authorities have assessed undisclosed rental income received in cash on the one hand as well as the cash deposits (supra) forming matter of adjudication before us in ITA No. 4231/Del/2025. We are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee has been assessed for undisclosed rental income of Rs.1,36,800/-, his cash deposits of Rs.1,02,046/- indeed appears to be the very sum which has been assessed u/s 69A of the Act. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to grant “telescoping” benefit to both these assessee’s wherever they have been assessed for undisclosed rental income as well as cash deposits: in very terms. to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal 7. Learned CIT-DR next seeks to point out that it is not in all cases that both these assessees have been assessed for their undisclosed rental income(s). He refers to the former assessee Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta’s second case to buttress the point to this effect. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have not considered these twin assessees accumulated cash in hand arising from past savings etc. nor kept in mind their socio-economic status. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to direct that a lump sum relief of Rs.1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits as undisclosed income; whichever is lower to both these assessees in all these cases would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
Same order to follow in all the remaining appeals since arising there the common search action and involving these twin assessees/partners of M/s Nonand Rai Bhola Nath.