LIBERTY ENTERPRISES,DELHI V. ITO, WARD-35(5) , DELHI

ITA 2264/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Liberty Enterprises, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.3,36,13,829 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to unexplained imports/purchases. The assessee argued that the partnership firm had dissolved in 2003, and subsequent transactions were conducted under a new PAN by one of the former partners as a sole proprietorship. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to lack of evidence showing these transactions were recorded under the new PAN. However, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee, which suggested that the income from these transactions was reported under the new PAN. The case was thus remanded for a fresh assessment by the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775844 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GUPTA; PRAGYA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Liberty Enterprises, C/o Prem Bansal, 133, First Floor, Anand Vihar Society, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi – 110 034. PAN: AAAFL2580Q Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(5), Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, Advocate & Ms Pragya, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 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). Printed from counselvise.com ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025 2 2. 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. 3. 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025 3 4. 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. 5. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITAs No.2264 & 2265/Del/2025 4 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "