JITENDER SINGH KATAIA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5937/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial 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 the car booking was initiated in the subsequent assessment year 2013-14 with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained investment for the current assessment year was found to be without merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order upholding the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained investment in car booking. The lower authorities held the entire booking amount as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained investment in car booking for AY 2012-13 is justified when the booking was initiated in the subsequent assessment year?

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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Jitender Singh Kataria, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 173A, Village-Basai, Ward-2(2), Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Gurugram-2344540 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ASJPK6005A Assessee by: Sh. Satyawaan Gahlaut, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066132354(1) dated 27.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there is hardly much need for tribunal to deal with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee’s alleged investment in car booking of Rs.11,00,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion whereas going by the case records, it Jitender Singh Kataia transpires that he had infact started/opened the booking itself on 29.09.2012 with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which falls in the subsequent assessment year 2013-14.

4.

This being the clinching factual position going un-rebutted from the Revenue side, the tribunal hereby finds no merit in the impugned addition of unexplained investment of Rs.11,00,000/- which is directed to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →