SH.BALJIT SINGH BACHAL,AMBALA vs. ITO,W-1, AMABAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 12/CHANDI/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 July 2021AY 2012-1315 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transaction was part of a family arrangement and no sale consideration was paid by the assessee and co-purchasers. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention based on evidence and the principle of consistency with co-purchasers' cases.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased land with co-purchasers for Rs. 3,60,00,000, paying Rs. 1,26,00,000 as his share. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000 as undisclosed investment as the assessee did not file a return and failed to provide satisfactory explanations. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000 as undisclosed investment is sustainable when the transaction was a family arrangement and no consideration was paid. Whether the assessment order is bad in law due to lack of application of mind in reopening the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant -Chd-2020 Sh. Baljit Singh Bachal, Ambala

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →