Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a legal practitioner, filed his return under Section 44ADA, disclosing professional income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings, alleging suppression of professional receipts and added Rs. 4.90 lakhs to the income, which the CIT(A) sustained. The assessee contended that the disputed amount was already part of his declared gross receipts.
Held
The tribunal held that additions cannot be made based on presumptions or assumptions without supporting evidence. Since the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA and declared income exceeding the prescribed rate, and the disputed amount was already included in the declared receipts, the addition was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether an addition to income can be made based on presumptions without concrete evidence when the assessee has opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA and declared income above the threshold.
Sections Cited
Section 44ADA, Section 147, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA
O R D E R Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 08.01.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the AO (assessment unit) dated 04.09.2021 for AY 2017-18 passed u/s 147 of the Act.
The assessee filed an application in mail seeking adjournment to file synopsis of submissions, but there was no physical or virtual A.Y. 2017-18 2 presence either by the assessee or his counsel and after considering the materials on record, SOF and the grounds of appeal, the adjournment is rejected by the bench and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld DR.
Condonation of delay: This appeal is belatedly filed by six days and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay due to non - cooperation of his previous counsel, and considering the reasons therein, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits.