DCIT Vs Shally Thapar

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

A search and seizure action was conducted on Shri Amarjit Singh Sethi and others on 23.03.2022 during which various incriminated documents were found and seized. These included documents indicating that the assessee, Shri Shally Thapar had entered into financial transactions with Shri Amarjit Singh Sethi and Smt. Dolly Sabharwal. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was centralized and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.02.2024, requiring him to file his return. In response, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 18,13,092/- on 06.03.2024. A sheet had been recovered from the car belonging to Shri Amarjit Singh Sethi during the course of search which contained computation of interest on loan amount of Rs. 6.62 Cr. for different years. During the course of search, Shri Amarjit Singh Sethi stated an oath that the computation related to loan of Rs. 6.62 Cr. given by Smt. Dolly Sabharwal, mother-in-law to his daughter to his friend Shri Shally Thapar and the interest amount mentioned in the sheet had been calculated as the same was to be taken from Shri Shally Thapar. However, no interest was actually paid by Shri Shally Thapar.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 69C of the IT Act in view of interest paid in cash to tune of Rs. 1,48,38,464/- even if loan is paid through banking channel.
• 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition even if the incriminating material seized in the form of sheet was found during the search and the same was confronted during as well as post search enquiries.
• 3. Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by considering that the sheet was found from third party premise and was not corroborative with the evidences even if the date-wise entries mentioned in the sheet are corroborative with the bank accounts of the assessee as well as that of lender.
• 4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition merely on the basis of afterthought submission of the assessee without corroborating the same with any evidences.
• 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by considering the incriminating material found from the search on third party even if the assessee is directly linked with with Sh. Amarjit Singh Sethi through financial transactions as well as family friend.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Ganpat Harishchandra Purohit Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai-400051

• Divya Panwar vs DCIT

  Delhi "B" Bench: New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Arvind Khetaram Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18 & 2018-19Allowed

• Gaurav Kumar Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai-400051

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed

• Nitish Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(1), New Delhi-110002

• Manan Narang vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2016-17Dismissed