This single-window order dismisses Revenue appeals against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court notes the Tribunal's reliance on a lack of fresh material during search and seizure to delete tax amounts, citing CIT v. Kabul Chawla. The court finds no substantial question of law arises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~52 & 54
RENU NANDA ..... Respondent
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 ..... Appellant
RENU NANDA ..... Respondent
Present : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. None for the respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 07.05.2018
The Revenue‟s appeal is directed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) questioning the deletion of certain amounts brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2007-08. The scrutiny assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟) concluded in the hands of the assessee whereby the Assessing Officer ITA 527/2018 & ITA 529/2018 Page 1 of 2
(AO) added certain amounts, received by her from her husband. The lower appellate authorities granted relief to the appellant holding that in the course of the search and seizure no fresh material had been recovered. This view is supported by the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573. Furthermore, the Court notices that the AO added this amount in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the source of the assessee‟s husband‟s income or receipts was not made known. On this aspect, both the lower appellate authorities have ruled correctly that the assessee is not under an obligation to establish the source of the source and merely has to indicate that the receipt is genuine from an identified party.
In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MAY 07, 2018 kks
Page 2 of 2
ITA 527/2018 & ITA 529/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly held that no fresh material was recovered during the search and seizure, leading to the deletion of amounts brought to tax.
Whether the Revenue appeal raising questions regarding the deletion of tax amounts lacks a substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CIT v. Kabul ChawlaReferred¶16
CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2
Renu Nanda
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
