Case Law Details
Gloria Eugenia Rynjah Banerji Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi’s decision in the case Gloria Eugenia Rynjah Banerji Vs ITO has ignited considerable debate in the tax law domain. The verdict essentially establishes that a technical ground alone cannot nullify income tax additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). This article delves into the case’s details, focusing on its key aspects and implications.
The Crux of the Case: The main issue concerned an addition of Rs.2002801 made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee, Gloria Eugenia Rynjah Banerji, appealed. This appeal was against the order of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, which had confirmed the AO’s addition.
Previous Litigation History: This was not the first round of litigation between the parties. Initially, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, prompting an appeal from the revenue side. The ITAT then sent the case back to the AO for reassessment in accordance with the law.
New Evidence and Contentions: In the new round of assessment, the assessee provided a will that differed from the one presented in the first round. The AO questioned the genuineness of the will, and the assessee responded with various explanations including the logic behind making deposits in amounts less than Rs. 50,000. All these contentions failed to convince the AO.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
This is not an ordinary mistake . The purpose of a particular section is defeated . . Section 68 applies where books of accounts are maintained by the assessee and 69A is where cash or bank deposits are found and no explanation is given by the assessee . Every section has a specific character as enshrined in law . The order can be challenged in High Court . Just my opinion .