KRISHAN DEV VERMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 131/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 October 2026AY 2014-156 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, subject to verification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted Forms 2 and 3 as proof of payment of the settled amount. In light of this, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deemed not sustainable. However, the Tribunal directed that Forms 2 and 3 would be subject to verification by the concerned Assessing Officer to confirm the actual deposit of the settled amount as per the settlement. Upon successful verification, the Assessing Officer is to issue Forms 4 and 5 to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including payment of the settled amount, renders prior additions unsustainable, pending verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Krishan Dev Verma, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) at Rs. 16,44,154. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 as the Assessing Officer (AO) believed 68,000 shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd., valued at Rs. 27,33,461, had escaped assessment. The AO treated Rs. 26,03,297 as unexplained money under Section 69A and Rs. 1,30,164 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in law and on facts, the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the additions made by the Id. AO/NFAC, despite the assessee having filed requisite forms/evidences for opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSV Scheme, 2024)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the applicability and compliance with the VSV Scheme, 2024). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate authority, they opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and duly paid the settled amount. Forms 2 and 3 issued under the scheme were produced as evidence of payment. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the Ld. DR for the Revenue was heard, but no specific contentions are detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 131/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Krishan Dev Verma The ITO, 801 Rama Krishana Ward-1(4), Vs Appartments, Shipra Path Jaipur. (Respondent) Mansarovar, Jaipur. PAN: ABJPV9447Q (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A. (thr. V.C.). Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 05-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Krishan Dev Verma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2014-15 on the ground that:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the additions made by Id. AO/NFAC, even though the requisite forms/evidences were filed by the assessee for opting of VSV, 2024 before the Income Tax Department. The action

I.T.A No. 131/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Krishan Dev Verma

of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire additions as confirmed by Id. CIT(A)/NFAC. 2. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Assessee’s return of income was subjected to scrutiny to examine on suspicious long term capital gains on shares . The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) at the total income of Rs. 16,44,154/-. Subsequently, assessment was reopened on the ground that assessee has originally purchased 1,00,00 shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd., but has only presented 32,000 shares for taxation before the Assessing Officer and out of which 68,000 shares of the value of Rs. 27,33,461/- has escaped assessment. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to hold that the assessee has not disclosed the transfer of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd., a penny stock company, and as such proportionate amount of Rs. 26,03,297/- was declared as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the commission on the entry amount @ 5% of Rs. 26,03,297/-, which comes to Rs.

I.T.A No. 131/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Krishan Dev Verma

1,30,164/- treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and thereby framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. At the very outset, Ld. AR for the assessee contended that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee has opted for settlement of the disputed amount under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV Scheme, 2024) and dully paid the settled amount. The assessee brought on record Form 2 and 3 issued as per DTVSV Scheme, 2024 to prove the fact that settled amount has already been paid. For ready reference Form No. 2 and 3 are extracted as under:-

I.T.A No. 131/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Krishan Dev Verma

I.T.A No. 131/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Krishan Dev Verma

6.

In view of the matter, we are of the considered view that in the face of the facts that assessee has already deposited the settled amount as per Form No. 2 and 3 and the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. However Form No. 2 and 3 would be subject to the verification by the concerned Assessing Officer if the

I.T.A No. 131/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Krishan Dev Verma

amount is actually deposited as per settlement arrived at between the parties to the appeal. Thereafter Assessing Officer shall issue Form No. 4 and 5 to the assessee. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed subject to the verification as directed in the preceding paras. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 22/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →