SHANTI DEVI,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), LAKHISARAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 291/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 September 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals challenged additions made by the lower authorities for unexplained investments in construction costs. The additions were based on a DVO's report.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions for unexplained construction costs were justified without considering the assessee's cost-saving factors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

PER BENCH (Oral):- These six assessee’s appeals for assessment year(s) 2010-11 to 2015- 16 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bhagalpur’s separate order(s) dated 30.12.2016 & 18.03.2016 involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits.

2.

With the able assistance of the learned JCIT, Addl. CIT-DR, MR. Ajoy Kumar, we notice at the outset that assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in all these six instant appeals challenge correctrness of both the lower authorities action adding alleged unexplained investments in the nature of cost of construction made in involving sums of ₹5,60,834/-, ₹5,98,364/-₹4,91,422/-,

ITA Nos.286-291/Pat/2018 A.Ys.2010-11 to 2015-16 Shanti Devi Vs. ITO Wd-2(5), Lakhisarai Page 2 ₹4,61,743/-, ₹4,38,352/- & ₹6,36,456/-; respectively (assessment year-wise). Learned departmental representative has invited our attention to both the lower authorities detdailed discussion going by the DVO’s report indicating the unexplained investments in issue. He fails to dispute the clinching fact that neither of the lower authorities as well as DVO have not taken into consideration the assessee’s various factors as well as self-supervision and cheap labour rate(s) forming majority of the impugned expenses. We therefore apply thumb rule to restrtict the impugned estimated cost of constdruction addition to the extent of 60% in all these assessment years with a rider that same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other. Learnded Assessing Officer is directed to frame consequential computation as per law.

3.

These assessee’s six asppeals in ITA No. 286 to 291/Pat/2018 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Tuesday 15th September, 2020 (लेखा सद"य) (&या'यक सद"य) (A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) *Dkp Sr.P.S. (दनांकः-15/09/2020 कोलकाता/Kolkata। आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/ Assessee-Shanti Devi Bazar Samiti, Shanti Complex Lakhisarai-811311 2. राज"व/Revenue-ITO Ward-2(5), Lakhisarai 3. संबं2धत आयकर आयु4त पाटना/ Concerned CIT Patna 4. आयकर आयु4त- अपील पाटना / CIT (A) Patna 5. 8वभागीय "'त'न2ध, आयकर अपील"य अ2धकरण पाटना, / DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गाड> फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ2धकरण, पाटना ।

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →