INCOME TAX OFFICER, M A ROAD VARANASI vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CHANDAULI

The respondent-assessee filed his Return of Income (RoI) declaring an income of Rs.1,20,000/- on 31.03.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. However, the assessee did not submit any reply. The AO issued a notice under Section 144 of the Act dated 23.12.2023, which was also not responded to.

The AO found that the contention as made in his statement by the assessee were not substantiated. In such circumstances, the AO made the addition of Rs.3,37,10,983/- as unexplained income and the amount of Rs.51,698/- as undisclosed income from M/s. Priyanka Jaiswal & others, AOP.

It appears that the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.05.2015. The Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal restored back the file to the learned CIT(A) by order dated 23.05.2016 for afresh adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee.

The record discloses that the assessee produced additional evidence before the learned CIT(A), as noticed in para 4.5 of the impugned order, which was admitted by the learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short). The learned CIT(A) sought a Remand Report from the AO, which was accordingly submitted on 04.12.2023. The report is reproduced verbatim in para 4.7 of the

We have heard parties. Perused record.

The learned CIT-DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) was in error in deleting the addition when a huge amount was found recorded in the PAN of the respondent- assessee as per the information received from M.P. State Excise department. It is submitted that the addition on either count could not have been deleted.

None appears for the respondent-assessee.

We have considered the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned CIT(A) has found, and rightly so, that the AO in his Remand Report has merely reiterated the assessment order dated 22.03.2014 and has adverted to the earlier dismissal of the appeal, for want of prosecution. It is in these circumstances that the learned CIT(A) has embarked upon examination of the documentary evidence produced. On the basis of the documents produced, the learned CIT(A) has found that as per the agreements entered into between the members of M/s. Priyanka Jaiswal & others, AOP and Devi Brijesh Kumar & others, AOP, the assessee was a member having 0.5% share. He also found that individual licenses issued in the name of the members were used by the AOPs and the AOPs, which were independently assessed to tax, had filed their RoI in time alongwith the Tax Audit report and the turnover reported in their hands was much more than the turnover reported in the hands of the respondent [appellant before the learned

The learned CIT(A) has further found that in the scrutiny assessment in respect of other members of the AOPs, the claim that the transactions appearing in the individual PAN were offered to tax in the hands of the concerned AOPs was accepted by the AOs after due verification and thus, there was no ground to take a different view in respect of the respondent-assessee. Even so far as the addition of Rs.51,698/- is concerned, the learned CIT(A) has observed in para 4.11 of the order as under :-

We find that the finding being correctly recorded on the basis of appreciation of material on record, does not require any interference. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.