Anil Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur)
Assessee was assessed u/s 153A. AO made addition of Rs.14,73,895 u/s 69C treating furniture expenditure incurred by Assessee’s wife, Smt. Alka Jain, as unexplained. Before CIT(A)/NFAC, Assessee furnished complete evidences—ITRs of wife from AY 2013-14 to AY 2020-21, computation statements & balance sheets—to prove source of funds & her financial capacity. CIT(A)/NFAC accepted that Smt. Alka Jain had sufficient capital & financial strength, but mis-read the balance sheet by treating only cash in hand of Rs.4,24,240 as the available fund & held the balance Rs.14,73,895 as unexplained.
Tribunal noted that the balance sheet clearly showed capital of Rs.59,84,811 & a specific entry “Furniture at Raipur – Rs.17,50,000”, matching the exact expenditure. CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly assumed that “cash in hand” alone represented available resources. Tribunal held that once capital & financial statements were accepted & not disputed, there was no basis to treat the expenditure as unexplained. Department could not produce any contrary material. Tribunal held the addition u/s 69C as misplaced, arbitrary & bad in law, set aside CIT(A)’s order & directed AO to delete the entire addition.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 31.07.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act, wherein the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,73,895/- on account of expenses allegedly incurred towards furniture work by Smt. Alka Jain, treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act.
2. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred, both in law and on facts in confirming the Assessment Order framed u/s.153A of Act on the strength of purported approval granted by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Raipur is void ab initio, invalid, illegal hence, deserves to be quashed and declared a nullity since, the mandatory prior approval granted is ‘no approval’ in the eyes of law as the same is mechanical, mere empty formality, lacks due application of mind and further, the Order was passed based on invalid, inchoate and consolidated approval.
3. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.
2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleads that he may be allowed to contest grounds on merits only at first and if he succeeds, all other grounds shall stand academic only. In this regard, he has assailed three grounds in appeal and as regards the Ground of appeal No.2, he submits that he is not pressing the same and it is signed by him accordingly. In view of his submission, Ground of appeal No.2 is dismissed as not pressed.
