Naman Khannah Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Naman Khannah, filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 12,18,840/-. The income was from business, rental income, bank interest, and other sources. A search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 08.12.2018 in the M/s H.S. Imper group of cases, wherein the office premise of M/s Dengen Products India LLP, where Sh. Prateek Chitkara is a partner, was also covered. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee was participating in a private chit activity run by these persons. The AO added a sum of Rs. 4,25,560/- to the income of the assessee, treating it as unaccounted money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act from undisclosed sources. The addition was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (ld. CIT(A)).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,25,560/- to the income of the assessee by the AO is justified.
• 2. Whether the assessee should be assessed under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• DCIT, Circle 73(1), Delhi vs. Canon India Private Limited

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Dismissed

• Hemant Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO

• Chitra Utsav Video Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• GAURAV BHATIA, VS. ITO, WARD 70(5), C-9, WESTERN COLONY, NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Manan Narang vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• Kanha Villa LLP vs. Income Tax Ward 29(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed