AVINASH TIWARY,KAIMUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 September 2020AY 2001-023 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the re-opening as not pressed. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification due to lack of proper verification by lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of re-opening of assessment and the addition of unexplained investment in a company. The assessee did not press the ground challenging the re-opening.

What were the issues?

Whether the re-opening of assessment was valid and whether the addition of unexplained investment was correctly made without proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH “E” COURT AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These two assessee’s appeals for assessment year(s) 2001-02 and 2002-03 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Patna’s separate orders both dated 14.06.2018 passed in case Nos.239 & 240/CIT(A)-1/2006-07; respectively involving proceedings 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused.

1.

-202/Pat/2018 A.Ys.2001-02 & 2002-03 Avinash Tiwary Vs. DCIT, Cir-3,Gaya Page 2 2. Learned counsel is very fair at the outset in not pressing assessee’s identical former substantive ground in both appeal(s) challenging validity of the impugned re-opening. The same is dismissed as not pressed therefore.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s former appeal the latter issue qua correctness of both the lower authorities action treating a sum of ₹17,61,100/- as unexplained investment in M/s Gupteshwaram Rice Mills Pvt.Ltd. learned counsel’s case is that he had invested a sum of ₹3,15,000/- only in the relevant previous year 2000-01 whereas the entire sum in the balance-sheet of the said entity has been added in his hands. He fails to dispute that the Assessing Officer has framed his “best” judgment assessment making the impugned addition. The factual position remains the same before the CIT(A) as well as wherein this clinching fact has nowhere been verified. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant latter issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. The Revenue’s vehement contention the impugned addition also follow suit. This assessee’s former appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

4.

Same order to follow in assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.202/Pat/2018 qua the second issue of similar unexplained investment of ₹2,09,824/-. Learned Assessing Officer shall examine this entire issue keeping in all the relevant evidence produced at the assessee’s behest in consequential proceedings.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →