SHRI UMA CHARAN GUPTA,SATNA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 205/ALLD/1997Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 February 2020AY 1988-892 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected Ground No. 2 as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 15, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that set off of independent additions against unexplained investment/expenditure is not permissible under the law.

What were the facts?

This is the second round of appeal before the ITAT, concerning assessment year 1988-89. The appeal was recalled to adjudicate specific grounds that were previously omitted. The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to set off sustained additions against unexplained investment/expenditure. Whether the CIT(A)'s findings were contradictory.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Agarwal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 6/12/1996 for assessment year 1988- 89. 2. This is second round of appeal before the Tribunal. This appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal by a composite order dated 27/2/2008. This order of the Tribunal was recalled, vide order dated 23/6/2017 in M.A. No.36/Alld/2008, for limited purpose, to adjudicate Ground nos.2 & 15, as the Tribunal omitted to adjudicate these grounds. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce Ground nos.2 & 15, as below: 2. That findings given by ld. CIT(A) in order dated 6/12/1996 are contrary to his own findings given in earlier order dated 26/3/1993. 15. That ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed benefit of set off of sustained addition if any against unexplained investment/expenditure.

3.

Ground no.2 was stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the bar as not pressed. Therefore, the same is rejected as not pressed.

4.

Apropos Ground no.15, the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given benefit of set off of the additions sustained by him against the unexplained investment/expenditure. 5. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has submitted that the set off of the additions is not possible, as the additions were independent. 6. Heard. We are in agreement with the submission of the ld. D.R. The additions were independent and no set off on such additions, as claimed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, is envisaged under the law. We, therefore, reject Ground no.15 of the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of accordingly. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/02/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →