Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)- 1, Jabalpur dated 08.08.2019.
The cross objection has not been pressed.
The assessee has challenged the amount of addition of Rs. 3,38,66,891/- for the A.Y. 2016-17 which was made on the basis of loose papers found page no. from 123 to 132 of LPS ½ during the course of survey in the business premises of Shri
CO No. 25/JAB/2019 Shailendra Jain Gauri Shankar Shrivastava. On the basis of those loose papers the Assessing Officer has worked out the total transaction amount of Rs. 3,84,54,123/-, out of which Rs. 45,87,232/- considered for making addition in the A.Y. 2015-16 and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,38,66,891/- was added in the A. Y. 2016-17
The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the addition has been made after duly considering the material found and impounded/seized during the course Income Tax proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the addition. The Ld. AR argued that the loose papers which were impounded during the course of survey on which the whole amount of addition Rs. 3,38,66,891/ - was based without proper application of mind and also purely based on presumption, suspicion, surmise and guess work and supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Ongoing through the records, we find the ld. CIT(A) held that loose papers are related with one project of duplexes and five persons namely:
1. 1. Ankit Shrivastava - 23%, 2. Rajesh Dubey -25%, 3. Kamlesh Agrawal - 20%, 4. Vinay Nema - 17% and last No.
4. Shailendra Jain - 15%. From this statement of Shri Vinay Nema that transaction recorded in the loose papers related with some project work which were jointly executed by all these five persons mentioned there name and share of his statement. The ld. CIT(A)rightly held that the share of the assessee i.e. Shailendra Jain come to only 15% and the Assessing Officer wrongly assessed the whole amount of transaction i.e. 100% in the hands of the assessee. Keeping in CO No. 25/JAB/2019 Shailendra Jain view facts that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly stricted the addition to the tune of the ownership of the assessee, we decline to interfere with the reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed.