Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 12,78,000 as unexplained investment, arguing it was a double addition since the company M/s Crypto Secure Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had already been assessed for unexplained credits/receipts. The lower authorities had upheld this addition based on seized material.
Held
The tribunal found no satisfactory reconciliation regarding the alleged double addition. It restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to verify that no double addition was made, with the assessee responsible for proving relevant facts within three opportunities.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the addition of Rs. 12,78,000 as unexplained investment in the assessee's hands constituted a double addition, given that the related company had already been assessed for similar unexplained credits.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/10795387488(1) dated 12.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel raises his first and foremost argument that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in adding the alleged unexplained investment of Rs.12,78,000/- in his hands based on the seized material found in the premises of M/s Crypto Secure Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; in Vishal Sharma assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. He further invites our attention to page 94 in the paper book that the aforesaid company has already been assessed for all of it’s unexplained credit/receipt amounting to Rs.33,53,735/- in assessment order dated 26.12.2019; and, therefore, it amounts to a double addition made in the assessee’s hands.
We notice in this factual backdrop that there is no satisfactorily reconciliation and verification regarding the above alleged double addition forthcoming from the case records. We accordingly deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer to ensure that there is no double addition made in his hands in above terms subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.