PLHR HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32,, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4571/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 August 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the specific provisions cited by the AO did not apply. The CIT(A) also accepted that the specific provisions were not applicable but affirmed the addition under general provisions. However, the Tribunal deleted the impugned additions, citing that no general provision could aid the Revenue in this case and referencing certain High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose against the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unexplained investment of Rs. 20 lakhs and alleged commission expenditure of Rs. 60,000/-, treating them as unexplained investment and commission expenditure respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under general provisions of the Act are valid when specific provisions relied upon by the AO are not applicable? Can the CIT(A) enhance the assessment under Section 251(1)(a) by changing the head of income?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69(3),Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.08.2025Pronounced: 28.08.2025

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21 arises against CIT(Appeals)-30 New Delhi’s’ order dated 15.07.2025 [DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1078535160(1)] in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the solitary substantive issue between the parties herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that learned Assessing Officer framed his assessment in question on 30.03.2025, inter alia, adding the assessee’s payment of Rs. 20 lakhs made to M/s Syamali Security & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. as it’s unexplained investment and further added the alleged commission expenditure u/s 69(3) @ 3%; coming to Rs. 60,000/-; respectively. It is further noticed that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion although has accepted the assessee’s case that both the above statutory provisions do not apply herein, he has; however, affirmed the addition under the so called “general” provisions of the Act.

2.1 It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal is of the considered view that impugned twin additions stand deleted under the specific provision; no alleged general provision would come to the Revenue’s aid as is done in the lower appellate discussion in issue. And also that going by CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Del.) and CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.)(FB), there is no such option of changing the head of income in section 251(1)(a) “enhancement” jurisdiction as well. The impugned twin additions of Rs. 20 lakh as well as Rs. 60,000/- herein, are hereby deleted, therefore.

3.

This assessee’s appeal ITA 4571/Del/2025 is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 28.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →