R N BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAKSHI NAGAR, JAMMU vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, WARD, JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 430/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee had shown the car as a fixed asset and claimed depreciation. It decided to restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide the necessary documentary evidence to substantiate its claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s R N Buildtech Private Limited, appealed against an addition of Rs. 31.50 Lacs made by the AO for the purchase of a BMW car, alleging it was from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence like a loan sanction letter or purchase bill, despite the assessee claiming the purchase was financed by a loan and reflected in its books.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the investment in a motor vehicle was from undisclosed sources or financed by a loan, and the sufficiency of documentary evidence to prove the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JM

(िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s R N Buildtech Private Limited Ward 1(1) Jammu बनाम/ 276-A, Bakshi Nagar J&K - 180001 Vs. J & K - 180001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADCR-9602-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Adjournment Application ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 03-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 04-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014- 15 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 16-01-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO on best judgment basis u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 29-03-2022. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for assessee sought adjournment which was rejected considering the fact that the first appeal has been dismissed for want of documentary evidences from the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. The registry has noted delay of 46 days in the appeal which stand condoned.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.31.50 Lacs on best judgment basis. The same represent purchase of a Motor Vehicle BMW Model No.BMW320D by the assessee. The Ld. AO alleged that the said investment was not reflected in the financial statements and the investment was out of undisclosed sources. During first appeal, the assessee contested the finding of Ld. AO and stated that that it had obtained loan of Rs.30 Lacs from BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and these transactions were duly reflected in the books. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the said claim for want of documentary evidences like loan sanction letter, purchase bill of the car etc. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

From the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.5, it could be seen that the assessee has shown addition in fixed assets towards car and also claimed depreciation. However, the claim has been rejected primarily for want of relevant of documentary evidences from the assessee. To meet the same, we restore this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →