SH. SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2765/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)17 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the diary was not seized during the search and lacked corroborative evidence. The retraction of the surrender was considered plausible given the circumstances, and the addition based on the diary was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

A search operation led to the discovery of a diary allegedly showing speculation income of Rs. 44.62 crores. The assessee and his brother surrendered 60% and 40% of this amount respectively. Subsequently, both retracted their statements, claiming coercion and lack of corroborating evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be made solely on the basis of a diary not seized during search and a retracted statement, without corroborating evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 271AAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv, Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv, Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv. &, Shri Dishant Seth, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 29.09.2025

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 28.02.2024 arising out of order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.03.2013 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-Ill is bad in law and nature and therefore it is liable to be quashed.

2.

Because the CIT (A)-Ill erred in confirming the addition on account of undisclosed a) The Ld. A.O. has made the addition on account of merely statement made by th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →