SYED IZAZUL HAQUE,GUWAHATI` V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI

ITA 284/GTY/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Syed Izazul Haque against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati, which upheld the AO's decision adding \\u20b91,45,58,220 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the AO under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the capital introduced as unexplained money. The assessee contested this, providing documents to show that the capital was from inherited ancestral property and other legitimate sources. However, the CIT(A) dismissed these documents as additional evidences, leading to the appeal in the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772076 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSIK RAY
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’ BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM ITA No.284/GTY/2019 (Assessment Year:2014-15) Syed Izazul Haque House No.21, Near DarandaMaszid, panjabari Road, Guwahati-781037, Assam Vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Guwahati Aaykar Bhavan, G.S Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati PIN-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AEDPH2934M Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR Revenue by : Shri Kausik Ray, DR Date of hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2019for the A.Y. 2014- 15. 02. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Learned CIT (A), upholding the order of Learned AO, wherein the addition of ₹1,45,58,220 was made by the Learned AO by rejecting the documents filed by the assessee by holding the same to be additional evidences while no such documents were filed which were not before the AO. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 284/GTY/2019 Syed Izazul Haque; A.Y. 2014-15 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 09-02-2016 declaring total income of ₹2,16,880/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and accordingly, notice u/s 142(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee appeared before the ld. AO and submitted the bank passbook from 01-07-2013 to 13-08-2013, trade license, computation of income, agreement for tenancy along with written submission. The Learned AO noted that the assessee, though appeared from time to time, could not furnish the explanation as regards to the capital introduced shown in the ITR and balance sheet. The Learned AO vide note sheet dated 21.10.2016, asked the assessee to file the documentary evidences in order to prove the capital introduction. Finally, on 02.11.2016, the ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared and requested for some more time to furnish the details, but even on the date appointed for hearing, no evidences were submitted.Finally, the AO treated the capital introduced as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee and charged tax u/s 115 BBE of the Act,vide order dated 15-11-16 passed under Section 144 of the Act. 04. In theAppellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the evidences filed stating the same to be additional evidences and thus, sustained the order of the Learned AO. Though, the learned CIT (A) at page number 4 extracted the reply submitted by the assessee wherein it was submitted that the brought forward capital balance of ₹1,45,28,344, which was represented by certain assets, mainly Ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans and advances and certain business assets. It was also submitted that all the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 284/GTY/2019 Syed Izazul Haque; A.Y. 2014-15 documents were filed by the ld. AO, which clearly established that property in question was acquired long back by assessee father. 05. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that in this case the assessee has furnished before the AO as well as before the Learned CIT (A) the complete set of documents, evidences, evidencing that brought forward capital balance was represented by certain assets, mainly ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans advances and certain business assets. We note that the learned CIT (A) extracted the reply of the assessee on page number 4 and 5 of the appellate order.We note that the opening balance of capital was ₹1,45,28,344/-, the net surplus for the year of ₹29,876/- (Income ₹216876/- less drawing of ₹1,87,000/-) was added to arrive the closing balance of ₹1,45,58,220/-.We note that despite the assessee furnishing all the evidences, the ld. AO passed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The AO passed the said order despite the fact that assessee furnished all the documents of the property showing ownership in his land and flats which were acquired by way of inheritance in 1995 upon the death of assessee ‘s father and by way of allotment acquired through a development agreement with the builder. We also note that there was no material before the ld. AO to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee introduced capital during the previous year under assessment while the facts evidences on record showed that the assessee had brought forward balance from the preceding financial year and during the year only added the profit of ₹2,16,876 as has reduced by personal drawing of rupees ₹1,87,000/-. Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) suffered from various anomalies and deficiencies as the appellate authority has failed to take into account all these evidences on finding that these Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 284/GTY/2019 Syed Izazul Haque; A.Y. 2014-15 were additional evidences, whereas all the documents were before the ld. AO as well. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOMOHAN DAS) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 26.08.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Printed from counselvise.com "