Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Liberty Enterprises, was subjected to an addition of Rs. 3,36,13,829/- by the AO under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 for unexplained imports/purchases. The assessee claimed the firm was dissolved, and business continued as a proprietorship by a partner under a new PAN, with transactions disclosed in the proprietorship's books.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the deposits in the bank account. However, since this evidence requires verification, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
Key Issues
Whether the AO was justified in making addition for unexplained imports/purchases when the assessee claimed the transactions were of a proprietorship concern formed after dissolution of the firm, and whether additional evidence filed by the assessee is admissible and requires fresh verification by the AO.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 07.03.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeals No.NFAC/2014-15/10138283 and NFAC/2015-16/10145743 arising out of the appeals before it against the orders dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-35(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025
Heard and perused the records. What comes up is that the AO, in the impugned order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 has made an addition of Rs.3,36,13,829/- u/s 69A of the Act on the issue of unexplained imports/purchases through IEC Code: 500027960 by M/s Liberty Enterprises. The assessee has stated that the partnership firm with this PAN (PAN No. AAAFL2580Q) has got dissolved on 31.03.2003. Further, the assessee has stated that after dissolution one of the partners of the firm, Shri Prem Bansai had carried out the business activity in the capacity of sole proprietorship under PAN No. AEQPB4437G in the name and style as “M/s. Liberty Enterprises” but has undertaken this transaction under the old PAN not only for this year but also for the preceding assessment year. It has further been stated by the assessee that the transaction of import/purchase is disclosed in the books of accounts of the proprietorship concern.
However, ld. CIT(A) observed that no evidence has been submitted to show that this transaction is reflected in the books of accounts of the proprietorship concern of Shri Prem Bansal even though Form No.35 for this appeal has been filed by Shri Prem Bansal. The claim of the assessee that transactions undertaken under the old PAN is clearly a mistake on the part of the assessee. That being so, no evidence has also been submitted to show that the transactions are reflected in the return of income in the new PAN. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.
ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025
During before this bench reasserting the aforesaid facts the ld. AR for assessee has filed additional evidences to establish that the deposits in the bank in the impugned bank account have been subject matter of the income of the erstwhile partner who continued to operate the firm as the proprietor and has reported the same in his own return. The additional evidences filed are certainly relevant to the issue as they prima facie establish that the assessee was not a beneficiary of the deposits.
Accordingly, the additional evidences are admitted. However, as they require verification so the same are restored to the files of the AO and the AO shall take into consideration the additional evidences of the assessee and to examine the issue afresh. Assessee on notice shall file these evidences or any other relevant information or evidences to the satisfaction of AO to enable AO to pass an order afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12th September, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 3 ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025