Facts of the Case

·         The Appellant/Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, Bench "C", in ITA No. 2046/Del/97 for the Assessment Year 1993-94.

·         During the proceedings, tax authorities discovered a diary containing entries in the name of Shri Suresh, which represented cash payments that were not recorded in the assessee’s books of account.

·         Consequently, the tax authorities invoked the provisions of Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the amount as unexplained expenditure.

·         In paragraph 12 of its order, the ITAT stated that an alternative submission by the assessee had been taken up before it for the first time. Acting "in the interest of justice" and to show "fairness to the Revenue," the ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a de novo decision on the merits.

·         The Appellant was aggrieved by this specific opening part of paragraph 12 which remanded the matter instead of deciding it at the Tribunal level.


Issues Involved


·         Whether the ITAT was factually correct in holding that the alternative submission regarding unvouched purchases was raised before it for the first time.

·         Whether the ITAT should have decided the alternative submission on its merits based on the available record, rather than remitting it back to the CIT(A).

·         Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration before the High Court.


Petitioner’s Arguments

·         The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the ITAT was incorrect in stating that the alternative submission was raised before the Tribunal for the very first time.

·         The Appellant brought the High Court’s attention to the order passed by the CIT(A) (specifically paragraph 23 thereof) where the contention had already been explicitly noted: "It was argued that what is written in the diary are projected purchases. An alternate ground taken was that if these are unvouched purchases, then, such purchases have to be allowed as a deduction."

·         Since the matter had already been actively argued before the CIT(A), the Appellant contended it was fully open for the ITAT to decide the alternative submission itself instead of forcing a remand.


Respondent’s Arguments

·         The Respondent (Revenue), represented by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, supported the actions of the tax authorities regarding the initial invocation of Section 69C.

·         The Revenue stood by the concurrent findings that the diary entries represented cash payments completely absent from the assessee’s regular books of account.


Court Order / Findings

·         On Section 69C Invocation: The High Court observed that both tax authorities had highlighted the relevant facts, leaving no doubt that the diary entries represented cash payments missing from the books. The ITAT rightly upheld the invocation of Section 69C.

·         On the Remand Error: The High Court held that the ITAT’s finding—stating the alternative submission was raised before it for the first time—was patently wrong. The record clearly proved the submission was previously raised before the CIT(A).

·         On Question of Law: The Court found that no substantial question of law arose as such.

·         Final Direction: Because the factual premise of the Tribunal's remand was incorrect, the High Court directed the ITAT to examine and decide the alternative submission itself. The ITAT must evaluate the issue in accordance with the law, taking into account the full record, including the assessment order and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.


Important Clarification

·         Tribunal's Duty on Existing Records: When an alternative plea or ground has already been recorded and argued before lower appellate authorities (like the CIT(A)), the ITAT cannot remand the matter under the incorrect assumption that it is a "new" ground being raised for the first time. It must adjudicate the matter on its merits based on the existing record.

 

Section Involved

·         Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Unexplained Expenditure)


Link to download the order –https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2004:DHC:11228-DB/BCP17022004ITA3112003_144030.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools[cite: 1].