Case Number: ITA No. 111/DEL/2021
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Date of Pronouncement: 2022-11-02
The appeal by Harmeet Singh challenges the order issued by CIT(A)-30, New Delhi, related to the assessment year 2017-18, focusing on a contested brokerage income from a property deal.
The appellant, Harmeet Singh, was implicated in a search and seizure operation among the Bajaj Group and its associates. In these raids, documents indicated potential unrecorded income from property brokerage, particularly involving a plot in Model Town, New Delhi.
The dispute centered on whether Singh had received the alleged brokerage income. While the Assessing Officer (AO) added the income based on an estimated brokerage rate, Singh contested this, claiming the income was not received and thus not taxable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), presided by N.K. Billaiya and Kul Bharat, found that while Singh had agreed to a certain brokerage rate, there was no concrete evidence that the brokerage was actually paid. Thus, the tribunal ruled in favor of Singh, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 575,500 from Singh’s taxable income.
This decision highlights the importance of evidence in tax proceedings, particularly where income receipts are disputed. The tribunal’s emphasis on actual receipt of income versus contractual agreements sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that taxpayers are not unduly taxed on income not realized.
The ITAT’s decision in Harmeet Singh’s case reaffirms the principle that tax liability should be based on actual, not presumed, income. This case is significant for taxpayers and practitioners dealing with income from irregular sources such as commissions and brokerages.
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