This case pertains to the assessment year 2012-13, where the appellant, Smt. Shabnam Mansoori, residing at H-15, Gali No. 18, Block-H, Jagatpuri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, filed an appeal against the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad. The case was filed on February 6, 2019, and the order was pronounced on March 7, 2023. The appeal was directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated November 30, 2018.
The case was presented before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench SMC, New Delhi. The panel consisted of Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member. The appeal was listed as ITA No. 883/Del/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.
At the time of the hearing on December 19, 2022, Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate, represented the appellant, while Shri Om Prakash, Senior Departmental Representative (DR), represented the Revenue.
The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not wish to press grounds no. 1 to 4 and 8. Therefore, these grounds were dismissed. The remaining grounds no. 5, 6, and 7 were as follows:
The learned counsel for the appellant referenced several judgments from co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, indicating that the issues were covered in favor of the appellant. These included judgments in the cases of Shri Manjit Singh Gahlot vs. ITO, Shri Naresh Pamnani vs. ITO, Shri Rajender Singh vs. ITO, and Shri Ratn Pal Kein vs. ITO. The counsel argued that similar facts and circumstances applied to the present case.
The learned Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
On careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani vs. ITO were identical to the present case. In the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, noting that the statement of a third party (Dr. P Mahalingam) used against the assessee was not confronted to the assessee, and no cross-examination was allowed.
The Tribunal observed that unless incriminating documents or statements used against the assessee are confronted and the assessee is allowed to cross-examine, such material cannot be used as evidence. In the present case, the assessing officer relied on the statement of Dr. P Mahalingam, recorded during a search, but it was not provided to the appellant for rebuttal, nor was cross-examination allowed. As a result, the Tribunal found the addition on merit to be wholly unjustified and deleted the addition of Rs. 19,75,000.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the entire addition in the hands of the appellant. The issue of reopening the assessment was left as an academic discussion.
The final judgment stated that the appeal of the assessee, Shabnam Mansoori, was partly allowed. The order was signed and pronounced by Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member, on March 7, 2023.
The official copy of the order was forwarded to:
By the Order of Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform