JANSIRANI KRISHNAMURTHY,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 543/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 September 2023AY 1997-984 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's higher estimations were without concrete material and there was no reason to disbelieve the assessee's claims. The certificate from the Village Administrative Officer supported the assessee's agricultural land holdings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a close associate of a former minister, appealed against additions made to her income from bus operations and agricultural income being treated as income from other sources. These additions were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the estimations of income from bus operations and the reclassification of agricultural income were justified based on the evidence presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 260A,Section 158BC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.541/Chny/2023
ITA No.542/Chny/2023
ITA No.543/Chny/2023
ITA No.544/Chny/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for captioned assessment years have identical issues and the same arises out of common but identical orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 06-03-2023 in the matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act on 24-02-2014. These appeals were heard along with lead case of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan in which has separately been disposed-off by us partly allowing the appeal of the assessee.

2.

In the present appeals, the grievance of the assessee is confirmation of certain protective addition of income from operation of bus. Further, the agricultural income has been treated as income from other sources. The substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan which has been deleted by us in that appeal. Accordingly, the issue of impugned addition in the hands of the assessee, on merits, is disposed-off by us as under.

3.

From the fact, it emerges that the assessee is close associate of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan, Ex-Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu in whose case a search was conducted and an order was passed in his case u/s 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 260A of the Act on 28.03.2013. In the case of present assessee, an assessment was framed on 18.03.1998 determining income of Rs.3.90 Lacs. However, the same was set aside by Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh disposal considering the fact that substantiative assessment made in the hands of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan was also remanded back to the file of Ld. AO. Pursuant to these, directions, impugned assessment has been framed on 24.02.2014 which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the same is in further challenge before us.

4.

In the assessment order for AY 1995-96, Ld. AO has estimated income from bus operations for Rs.2.79 Lacs. Further, the agricultural income of Rs.1.11 Lacs has been treated as income from other sources. In AY 1996-97, income from bus operations have been estimated at Rs.4.54 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.1.17 Lacs has been treated as income from other sources. In AY 1997-98, income from bus operations have been estimated at Rs.6.19 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.1.17 Lacs has been treated as income from other sources. In AY 1998-99, income from bus operations have been estimated at Rs.6.85 Lacs and agricultural income of Rs.1.09 Lacs has been treated as income from other sources. The assessee relied on evidences / documents furnished during original assessment proceedings which were rejected by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment for want of any response from the assessee. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. As stated earlier, the lead order has been passed by us in the case of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan in wherein substantiative addition relating to present assessee has been deleted by us. So far as the present assessee is concerned, we find that Ld. AO has made impugned addition by rejecting the claim of agricultural income. However, upon perusal of certificate of Village Administrative Officer as placed on record, it could be seen that the assessee is having sufficient cultivable land. The assessee has also offered income from bus operations on an estimated basis. The higher estimation made by Ld. AO is without any concrete material on record and there is no reason or material with revenue to disbelieve the claim of the assessee. This being so, the impugned additions, in all the years, has no legs to stand. By deleting the same, we allow all the appeals of the assessee. 6. All the appeals stand allowed. Order pronounced on 27th September, 2023 (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :27-09-2023 DS आदेश की Bितिलिप अ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथ"/Appellant2.""यथ"/Respondent 3.आयकरआयु"त/CIT 4."वभागीय""त"न"ध/DR 5.गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →