SANJEEV UPADHYAY,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/ALLD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 December 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and their application was approved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an assessment order for AY 2012-13. The primary issue involved an addition of Rs. 4,00,000 as undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 4,00,000 as undisclosed income was justified, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit for past savings. The appeal was withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CA
For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.12.2020Pronounced: 18.12.2020

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.03.2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

1. That in any view of the matter the assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153A of the IT Act by determining the income at Rs. 5,20,000/- ignoring the correct facts by the assessing officer and his actions as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad both on the facts and in law.

2. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- as made and maintained by the two lower authorities by saying undisclosed income is totally unjustified and wrong because the assessee is engaged in legal profession and earing income for the last number of years but no benefit was allowed for past saving and seized amount is not too high considering the assessee’ status. Thus simply because the amount was seized during a particular period that does not Sanjeev Upadhyay mean that it is undisclosed income.

3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.4,00,000/- seized from the possession of the appellant was made and confirmed by the two lower authorities ignoring the correct facts and even without allowing any credit for past savings of the assessor SB well as savings of assessee’s family members etc., and also without bringing any supportive material on record, hence the addition is unwarranted and liable to be deleted in interest of justice.

4.

That in any view of the matter the interest as charged under different sections of the IT Act is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground before hearing of the appeal.

2.

At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee has stated at bar that the assessee has already gone under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019 and the application of the assessee has been approved by the competent authority by issuing form no. 5. The assessee has filed an application dated 16.12.2020 as well as form no. 5 issued by the competent authority. The learned DR has not raised any objection if the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

Accordingly, in view of the fact that the assessee has already approached the department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2019 to settle / resolve the dispute and the application of the assessee has already been approved by the competent authority. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.12.2020 through video conferencing.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →