TEJVIR SINGH MANESS,FARIDKOT PUNJAB V. ITO WARD 1, FARIDKOT

ITA 276/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tejvir Singh Maness, a legal practitioner, who appealed against the order of the CIT (A) which had sustained an addition of Rs. 4.90 lakhs to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the AO during reassessment proceedings, suspecting that the assessee had underreported his professional income. The assessee argued that the income from the case in question was already included in his declared gross professional receipts under the presumptive taxation scheme of section 44ADA. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on presumptions without any concrete evidence, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833872 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Presumptive income
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘DB’ AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 276/ASR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tejvir Singh Maness, BX 11/398, No.4, New Harindera Nagar, Punjab 151203 Vs ITO, Ward 1, Faridkot èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BASPM7258R अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent VIRTUAL HEARING Assessee by : None (Adjournment application) ] Revenue by : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 O R D E R Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 08.01.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the AO (assessment unit) dated 04.09.2021 for AY 2017-18 passed u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The assessee filed an application in mail seeking adjournment to file synopsis of submissions, but there was no physical or virtual Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 276/ASR/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 2 presence either by the assessee or his counsel and after considering the materials on record, SOF and the grounds of appeal, the adjournment is rejected by the bench and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld DR. 3. Condonation of delay: This appeal is belatedly filed by six days and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay due to non - cooperation of his previous counsel, and considering the reasons therein, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is a legal practitioner and has filed his return under the deeming provisions of section 44ADA of the Act disclosing professional income @ 50% ( or more) of gross professional receipts for the FY 2016-17. The break-up of gross receipts as per the return filed by the assessee was disclosed at Rs. 4,90,000/- from Siminder kaur / Vaneet Singh, Rs. 5 lakhs from one M/s Barnala Developers and Rs. 15,650/- as fees for miscellaneous work ( totalling Rs.10,05,650/- ) , against which the income was disclosed at Rs.5,14,550/-, which is covered by the presumptive section u/s 44ADA. However, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of information available that the assessee has received Rs.4,90,000/- from Siminder Kaur vs Vaneet Singh ( Rs. 3 lakhs in August 2016 plus Rs. 1.90 lakhs in October 2016) and a further amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 276/ASR/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 3 20/07/2017, (which of course relates to subsequent assessment year) , and arrived at a conclusion that a lawyer commanding such high fees in the court, must have earned much more than what is actually disclosed in return, and made an addition of Rs. 4.90 lakhs to the returned income, against which the matter was carried in first appeal. In first appeal submissions filed by the assessee explained the fact that the disputed amount added back by the AO Rs. 4.90 lakhs being the fees received from siminder Kaur matter, has already formed a part of the gross professional receipts of Rs. 10.05 lakhs, in the return filed and there are no materials or documents or any evidence in possession of the AO, to arrive at a conclusion that professional receipts has been suppressed and in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the existence of any additional receipts no additions are justified on presumption and suspicion no matter how strong the same may be and the assessee requested for deletion of the addition. However, the Ld CIT (A ) dismissed the appeal in absence of full details of daily transaction of cash and confirmation of all parties, cash receipts memo, and other particulars. 5. The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT (A) . 6. We have considered the materials and heard the Ld DR and we are of the opinion that presumptions and assumptions no matter how strong it may be, cannot form the basis of any addition, unless Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 276/ASR/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 4 supported by evidence and the information already in possession of the AO regarding the assessee quantum receipts are already covered by the total receipts declared in the return by the assessee and the assessee in this case has opted for presumptive taxation , u/s 44ADA , which is the sole prerogative of the assessee and has disclosed income more than the prescribed rate of 50% , and as such the same is legally acceptable. As such the addition of Rs. 4.90 lakhs made by the AO and sustained in first appeal is hereby deleted. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 05.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “rkk” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "