ITO, NEW DELHI V. SMT. SATYA BHAMA KANODIA, NEW DELHI

ITA 2073/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues in the appeal included the acceptance of additional evidences by the CIT(A), deletion of an addition of Rs. 7,54,00,000 concerning undisclosed sources of investment in properties, and the reduction of an addition related to unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the sources of investment and that the cash deposits were sale proceeds, applying a general profit rate to the unexplained cash deposits. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing with the reasoning and findings presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34631 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Capital Gains
• Section: 201; 14A

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 2073/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) ITO Ward- 40(3) New Delhi Vs. Satya Bhama Kanodia D-743, 2nd Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura New Delhi-110034 PAN No.AAJPK4469J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .01.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM The aforetitled appeal arising out of the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-14, New Delhi (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred in short as CIT(A)] by which the application filed by the Assessee/ appellant against the order Page 2 of 6 dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer [(for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred in short as Ld. AO)] for A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. The grievance of the revenue reads as under :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified i deciding the appeal by accepting the additional evidences, ignoring the findings of the A that the assessee's case does not fall in any of circumstances listed in sub Rules 1(a) 1(d) of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified deleting an addition of Rs. 7,54,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed sources investment in various properties ignoring the fact that the assessee had neither furnish the supporting evidence in respect of source of investment in various properties during the assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings. She merely filed audited Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet of Kanodia Enterprises as 31.03.2012 which revealed that there was no outstanding loan against any bank Kanodia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd whereas the assessee's claim was that the properties bought out of loan taken from the various banks and Kanodia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified restricting the addition of Rs. 82,84,580/- to Rs. 1,24,269/ made on account unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts by holding the unexplained cash deposit sale Page 3 of 6 proceeds and applying the GP rate 1.5% on such cash deposit ignoring the fact the asssessee could not furnish the cogent evidence that the cash deposited in the accounts was out of sale proceeds. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not just deleting the disallowance of expenses out of expenses of Rs. 7,23,980/- u/s 14 Act ignoring the fact that the assessee could not prove the business expediency in of investment in various companies and Board's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02. 5. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. When the matter called for hearing, nobody appeared on the behalf of assessee. From the perusal of material on record, it reveals that on 08.06.2022 Shri Virendra Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee /appellant but thereafter nobody appeared till date of final hearing. In the course of proceedings directed to issue notice through DR. In this regard it was informed by the learned DR on 01.08.2024 that notice has been sent upon the e- mails SHARDAENTERPRISES 1991 @ gmail.com and bhweshbhola @gmail.com as per in ITR of the assessee as per record. It is submitted by the learned DR that assessee has not been residing at any of the addresses as notice was serviced by affixture on all addresses except B-175, Saraswati Nagar, Pitampura, New Delhi - Page 4 of 6 10034 because the present owner of the address was reluctant to affixture. 4. Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.7,23,980/- by applying the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8 D of the IT Rules. In this ground the learned CIT(A) observed that assessee had invested this money in his own sister concerns and all the companies were private limited and no dividend income was received by the assessee. 5. Grounds No.3 relates to the addition of Rs.7,54,00,000/- on account of investment in properties from undisclosed sources and short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and in this ground the learned CIT(A) observed as under :- “During the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, the appellant purchased Property No. C-468, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura for Rs. 64,00,000/- on 15th June 201 and sold it for Rs 1,02,50,000/- on 25th Jan 2012. These Transactions in properties were also duly shown by the appellant & the Ld. AR has provided the copies Purchase & Sale of the Property. On perusal of the written submissions an records it is observed that the appellant has not shown the short-term capital gain on purchase & sale of the above property which comes at F 38,50,000/- (1,02,50,000 64,00,000). The Ld. AO has made addition account of short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- which is the total consideration of the property under consideration. In view of this factual position addition of Rs. 38,50,000/- on account of short-term capital gain is Page 5 of 6 confirmed and addition of Rs. 64,00,000/- (1,02,50,000- 38,50,000) is deleted. Hence, the ground appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Ground No.3 relates to the addition of Rs.82,84,580/- on the ground of being “Unexplained Cash Credits” as the assessee did not file any details/ evidence to prove the sources of the Credits in her account. In this ground, the learned CIT(A) observed that it will meet the ends of the justice if the GP applied by the AO on the total turnover @1.5% is also applied on the total cash deposits of Rs.82,84,580/-, being sale proceeds which comes at Rs.1,24,269/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,24,269 is deleted. 7. We have heard the submissions Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) elaborately discussed the issues raise before him and passed order with sound logic, which has no any ground to interfere and hence appeal of the revenue liable to dismissed. 8. Consequently, the appeal of the revenues dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 31st January, 2025. .SD SdSd Sd/- Sd/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31/01/2025 NEHA, Sr. PS "