Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Assessee by: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA & Praveen Kumar, Adv. Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 12.11.2025 O R D E R
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 30.10.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 30.10.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Noida (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Sections 144/147 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12.
Brief facts of case are that AIR information was received that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs.70,00,000/- during financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated with the prior approval of the Ld. PCIT, Noida notice under section 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. No compliance has been made to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 14.05.2018. No compliance of the notice was made. Again, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 24.07.2018 and no compliance of the notice was made. Show-cause-notice under Section 144 of the Act dated 11.09.2018 was issued along with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. On completion of proceedings by Ld. AO vide order dated 30.10.2018, made addition of Rs.70,00,000/-.
3. Against order dated 30.10.2018 of Ld. Assessing Officer, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 30.10.2024 and addition of Rs.55,00,000/- was confirmed.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds:
“1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in rejecting admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in confirming additions for an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- despite the fact that the assessee has duly explained the source of investment in property and discharged the onus cast upon him u/s 68 of the Act w.r.t. amounts credits to his bank account.
That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act without considering the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act.
5. That the appellant assails its right to amend, alter, change any grounds of appeal or take any further ground at any time even during the course of hearing of instant appeal.”
5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 4.4.2 of the appellate order held that the assessee has not filed any confirmation from any person from whom loans were taken and thus, has failed to discharge onus case under Section 68 of the Act. Regarding above, he submitted as under:
S. Source Amount Comments No.
Sh. Mahendra 7,70,000 The assessee has duly furnished Prakash Sharma, confirmation of account from father Father (PAN – and other evidences for discharge of CIQPP2527P) onus cast under Section 68 of the Act. (Pg. 76-86, P) The bank statement of father is at Page 79 of paper books and from perusal of the same, it is evident that out of maturity proceeds of FDR, amount was remitted by father to assessee. Evidences of agricultural and rental income of father were also furnished. (Pg. 80-86, PB) 2. D. K. Bhati 5,00,000 He is partner of assessee in firm M/s (Dhirendra Bhati) Nirmaan Infrastructure, Partnership (PAN Firm. AHXPB5624P) The assessee has furnished his confirmation of account, ITR and COI for 3 years and affidavit (Pg. 95-105, PB).
Mahesh Chand 5,00,000 The assessee has furnished his Sharma, Friend (PAN confirmation of account, PAN and ALSPS7082B) affidavit (Pg. 108-111, PB).
4. Manoj Kumar 5,00,000 The assessee has furnished his Aggarwal, Friend confirmation of account, ITR and (PAN COI for three years and affidavit AGAPA3475D) (Pg. 112-118, PB).
Bharat Singh Yadav, 2,50,000 The assessee has furnished his Friend (PAN confirmation of account, bank ΑΕΚΡΥ4194Η) statement and ITR and COI for 2 years (Pg. 87-94, PB).
25,20,000 5.1 Receipts from Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd. and Sarla Glass Traders adjudicated in para 4.4.4. The assessee is director of M/s Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd. drawing salary as directors' remuneration from said entity. Further, M/s Sarla Glass Traders is proprietorship concern of assessee.
Following receipts in bank account of assessee are utilized for purchase of property: Sarla Aluminium 8,00,000 Pg. 16, PB Recovery of Pg.144- Structure Pvt. Ltd. Advances and 162, PB Sarla Aluminium 6,00,000 Pg. 16, PB Salary Structure Pvt. Ltd. Sarla Aluminium 2,50,000 Pg. 17, Pg. Withdrawal of Pg.24-25, Structure Pvt. Ltd. Capital PB Sarla Glass Traders, 8,00,000 16, PB PB Proprietorship Firm 24,50,000 The assessee has furnished his confirmation of account with M/s Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd. (Pg. 144-145, PB) and of his proprietorship concern, M/s Sarla Glass Traders (Pg. 156, PB). That following amounts were receivable by assessee from M/s Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd.:
Liability in M/s Sarla Glass Traders 48,03,280 (Pg. 156, PB)
Own dues from earlier years 3,78,057 (Pg. 145, PB) 51,81,337 Director's remuneration for current year 6,50,000 (Pg. 145, PB) Remittance made during current year 2,50,000 (Pg. 145,PB) 60,81,337 Out of stated amounts, following amounts were received by assessee:
24-Jun-2010 Own Account 8,00,000 Pg.16, PB Utilized for purchase of 29-Jul-2010 Own Account 6,00,000 Pg.16, PB property 03-Aug-2010 Own Account 2,50,000 Pg.17, PB 13-Nov-2010 Own Account 2,10,000 13-Jul-2010 Sarla Glass 5,00,000 Pg.25, PB Traders, Proprietorship Firm 22-Jul-2010 Sarla Glass 10,00,000 Pg. 25, PB Traders, Proprietorship Firm 29-Jul-2010 Sarla Glass 9,00,000 Pg.25, PB Out of this Traders, Rs.8,00,000/- Proprietorship Utilized for Firm purchase of property 16-Dec-2010 Sarla Glass 5,00,000 Pg.25, PB Traders, Proprietorship Firm 31-Mar-2011 Sarla Glass 10,00,000 Pg.25, PB Traders, Proprietorship Firm
57,60,000 “
5.2 Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the receipt individually of Rs.7,00,000/- from Nirmaan Infrastructure, Partnership Firm. The comments of Ld. AO in remand report are enumerated by Ld. CIT(A) on Page 8 of appellate order. In respect of above, he submitted as under: i. That PAN of M/s Nirmaan Infrastructure is allotted on 02/04/2009 and not on 02/04/2010 as mentioned by Ld. AO. (Pg. 121, PB) ii. That the amount received by assessee represented withdrawal of capital from partnership firm and is not a loan. (Pg. 119, PB) iii.Bank statement of firm was duly furnished. (Pg. 122, PB) iv. Copy of ITR filed by firm was also furnished. (Pg. 123-143, PB) 5.3 Thus, the onus cast upon assessee u/s 68 of the Act was duly discharged.
Learned Authorized Representative for the Department of Revenue relied on order of Ld. CIT(A).
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) relied on non-PAN based AIR Information received by Ld. AO regarding purchase of immoveable property for Rs.70,00,000/- by the assessee. During assessment proceedings, assessee did not appear. Ex parte assessment was completed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 30.10.2018.
7.1 In the appellate proceedings, assessee filed additional evidence. Remand report of Ld. AO was received. The assessee gave details of FDR which were accepted to be correct.
7.2. In para 4.4.4.2, Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has not filed any confirmation report which has been challenged by the submissions made by Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4.4.4 failed to consider receipts from M/s. Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd and M/s. M/s. Sarla Glass Traders and receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- from Nirmaan Infrastructure submitted by the assessee. The above referred evidence submitted by appellant/assessee clearly showed discharge of onus under Section 68 of the Act. Resultantly, the additions made by Ld. AO and partially upheld by Ld. CIT(A) being unsustainable are set aside. Ground of appeal nos. 1 to 5 are accepted.