HARVINDER SINGH,DELHI V. JAO CIRCLE-70(1), DELHI

ITA 700/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harvinder Singh, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 to his income by the Assessing Officer, which was deemed as unexplained investment in a motor car purchase. The Assessing Officer had initially added this amount to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2015-16, questioning the source of funds used for a car purchase. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the absence of any supporting documents or explanations from the assessee regarding the car loan during the appeal. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, concurred with the lower authorities' decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314026 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM MANOHAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 700/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2015-16 HARVINDER SINGH, VS. JAO, CIRCLE 70(1), F-153, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELHI WEST DELHI, DELHI-15 (PAN: BIGPS2482D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anish Gupta, CA Respondent by : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066085774(1) order dated 26.06.2024. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, hence, we condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceeded further. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of not explaining the source of Rs, 15,00,000/- out of Rs.30,02,658/- for the purchase of motor car by the assessee in the year under 2 | P a g e appeal. The assessee has stated in the assessment proceedings that he has taken a car loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- but he could not furnish any documents in support of his claim. Whereas in the appeal proceedings, the assessee has only enclosed the copy of Income tax returns, Computation of income, Form 26AS: Form 16 and bank státements without any written submission on the issue of unexplained investment of Rs. 15,00,000/-including the car loan related details and documents. Ld. CIT(A) noted that it clearly shows that the assessee is not having any material evidence to support the source of investment for purchase of motor car to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- is out of car loan and also not interested in explaining the source of investment in the appeal proceedings. The assessee neither could produce the car loan documents or any other source to explain the source of purchase of car to tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the AO nor in the appeal proceedings. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee was dismissed. 4. Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. I find that it is an admitted fact that before the lower authorities assessee was unable to produce the car loan documents or any other source to explain the source of purchase of car to tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted that he has no evidence in this regard and thus conceded to confirm the addition on this account. Hence, in my considered view, in the absence of 3 | P a g e aforesaid evidences, the addition made by the AO was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I affirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count and reject the ground raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06.05.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "