Ashish Kalra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT DELHI deletes addition of alleged cash receipts – no evidence, contradictions in statements, earlier year accepted- Loose Papers & “Kalra Ji” Not Enough! ITAT Quashes ₹1.20 Cr Cash Receipt Addition & Even Deletes ₹5 Lakh Enhancement
Assessee was a faculty member teaching CA students for Bright Professional Pvt. Ltd. A search took place in Bright Group & loose papers (Annexure A-29 & A-30) allegedly showed cash paid to “Kalra ji”. On this basis, AO reopened u/s 147 & added ₹1.20 crore as undisclosed cash receipts. CIT(A) not only confirmed the addition but also enhanced ₹5 lakh received by cheque.
Assessee’s defence:
- No direct evidence of receiving any cash.
- His name not in seized papers; only “Kalra Ji” is mentioned.
- Statement of Bright Group Director (u/s 132(4)) did not name assessee.
- Director admitted no evidence of cash payments maintained.
- Faculty stopped teaching in Feb/March 2008 – yet additions made even beyond that.
- Bright Group claimed large batches of 500-600 students in auditoriums, but could not give any auditorium name, rent details, attendance registers, or proof of rent.
- Affidavits of students & study material showed actual batches of only 100-110 students at Laxmi Nagar premises, not auditoriums.
- In AY 2007-08, CIT(A) deleted similar addition on same documents, accepted by Revenue.
- In other faculty cases, additions deleted or ITAT also deleted (e.g., Vikas Kapoor case).
Tribunal’s Findings:
- Seized papers only say “Kalra Ji”, no proof it refers to assessee.
- Initial statements of directors do not support Revenue’s case.
- Revenue failed to show where classes were held or how 400-500 students attended.
- Huge contradiction between statements of different directors.
- No corroborative evidence – only loose papers = “dumb document”.
- Past year’s similar addition already deleted & accepted by department.
- Principle of consistency + absence of evidence = addition unsustainable.
Regarding ₹5 lakh cheque:
- Assessee received ₹5 lakh by cheque from Bright Star.
- He returned same amount by cheque after 6 months.
- No TDS deducted – proves it was loan, not income.
- Hence, enhancement also unjustified.
Result:
- Reopening u/s 147 upheld (in view of jurisdictional HC),
- BUT entire addition of ₹1.20 crore deleted,
- Enhancement of ₹5 lakh also deleted.
Key Reason:
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.
