Anil Dalmia Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur Bench)
A Code Name & Contact Number Are Not Evidence: Jaipur ITAT Deletes ₹4 Lakh Addition Based on Mere Suspicion
Summary: The assessee, Anil Dalmia, was subjected to reassessment proceedings following information received from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged cash transactions. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 had also been conducted in the case of the Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group, which included the assessee.
The information initially relied upon by the AO alleged that the assessee had entered into cash transactions with Shri Ram Mohan Totla. An order u/s 148A(d) was passed, followed by issuance of notice u/s 148. The reassessment was thereafter completed by determining total income at ₹20,31,070.
During the reassessment, the AO made two additions. The first was ₹3,71,550 towards alleged unexplained interest income received by the assessee. The second was ₹4,00,000 u/s 69C, representing alleged interest or commission paid by the assessee out of unexplained sources.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by deleting the addition of ₹3,71,550, which was the amount forming the basis of reopening. However, the CIT(A) sustained the separate addition of ₹4,00,000 u/s 69C. The assessee therefore approached the Tribunal challenging the surviving addition, besides questioning the validity of the reassessment.
Issues before the Tribunal
The principal issue was whether the addition of ₹4,00,000 u/s 69C could be sustained merely on the basis of a code name allegedly connected with the assessee & his mobile number found in another person’s contact list.
