What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of having disclosed the cash in hand under IDS-2016 requires verification. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The assessee disclosed cash in hand in the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 and paid tax on it. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 24,37,225/- on account of cash in hand during scrutiny assessment. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash in hand was justified when the same was already disclosed and taxed under IDS-2016.

Manoj Bhardwaj, Bahadurgarh vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goel, CA

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Hearing: 18.12.2023Pronounced: 20.12.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 25.05.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The Ld NFAC(A) has erred in law in upholding the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Ld Assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio.

2. The Ld NFAC(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions of Rs 24,37,225/- made by the Ld AO. 3. The Ld. NFAC (A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that Ld AO has made addition of the CASH already disclosed in IDS-2016 and has paid tax thereon. 4. The Ld AO has again issued notice u/s 148 dated 30-06- 2021 for re- assessment and the proceedings are still pending with Ld AO.”

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee electronically filed his return of income of INR 8,55,910/- on 26.11.2016. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed vide order dated 15.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereby, the Assessing Officer made addition of INR 24,37,225/-on account of cash in hand. Assessee carried the matter in appeal to Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition. Aggrieved against, the assessee has filed the present appeal.

Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had already disclosed the cash in hand in IDS-2016 and had paid tax thereon.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee had already disclosed the cash in hand in IDS-2016 scheme. This fact requires verification therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the AO and, if the AO finds that the assessee had already disclosed this amount and paid taxes thereon, he would delete the addition. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th December, 2023.

MANOJ BHARDWAJ,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments