SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that estimating the income was arbitrary as the assessee's books of accounts were not questioned. The addition was deleted except for the disallowance of Section 80C deductions.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared an income of Rs. 1,35,150/-. The AO estimated the total income at Rs. 3,00,000/- due to unverified salary income and lack of proof for Section 80C deductions. The CIT(A) restricted the estimation to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the estimation of income by the AO and CIT(A) was justified when the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected. The allowability of deduction under Section 80C for want of proof of payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 610/JP/2018
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25TH January,
2018 of ld. CIT (A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has
raised the following grounds :-
“ 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the estimate of income Rs. 2,50,000/- as against the returned income Rs. 1,35,150/-, kindly delete estimated addition.
The appellant craves the right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.
The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.03.2011
declaring income of Rs. 1,35,150/- comprising of salary income and business
income. The AO during the scrutiny assessment noted that the assessee is unable
2 ITA No. 610/JP/2018 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Jaipur.
to produce any Salary Certificate, hence the AO found that the salary income is not
verifiable. Further, the deduction claimed under section 80C of Rs. 56,997/- on
account of LIC premium was also not found to be allowable for want of proof of
payment. The AO accordingly estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs.
3,00,000/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,35,150/-. The assessee
challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) restricted the
estimation of income to Rs. 2,50,000/- as against Rs. 3,00,000/- made by the AO.
We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant
material on record. We note that in the return of income the assessee has declared
total income of Rs. 1,35,150/- comprising of Rs. 72,000/- as salary income and Rs.
1,20,150/- as business income. After claiming the deduction under section 80C, the
assessee offered the said amount to tax. The AO doubted the salary income of the
assessee though no question was raised against the business income of the
assessee. In the assessment order the AO has recorded the proceedings that in
response to notices, the assessee attended office from time to time and submitted
necessary details and explanations which are placed on record. Further, requisite
information and bank statements, books of accounts were also produced which have
been put to test check by the AO as well as the case was discussed with him. Thus
it is manifest from the assessment order that the assessee produced all the requisite
details and books of accounts for examination of the AO which were examined by
the AO. The AO has raised the doubt about the salary income declared by the
assessee for want of salary certificate. Even if the salary income was doubted by
the AO, the same can be treated as income from other sources. However, there
would be no tax effect as the assessee did not claim any deduction against the
3 ITA No. 610/JP/2018 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Jaipur.
salary income. So far as the claim of deduction under section 80C, the assessee
could not produce any evidence of payment, therefore, the same was disallowed by
the AO. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any cogent
reason to estimate the income of the assessee when the books of accounts of the
assessee were not questioned by the AO or rejected. The ld. CIT (A) has also
sustained the addition on adhoc basis as it was done by the AO. Therefore, the
estimation of income by the AO at Rs. 3,00,000/- as well as the estimation of income
by the ld. CIT (A) at Rs. 2,50,000/- is without any basis and highly arbitrary in
nature. Accordingly, we find that except the disallowance of claim under section 80C
for want of production of the supporting evidence, no other addition is called for in
the case of the assessee. Accordingly we delete the addition made by the AO by
estimating the income of the assessee which was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) by
restricting the same to Rs. 2,50,000/- and direct the AO to compute the total income
of the assessee by disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80C.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur Dated:- 13/08/2018. Das/
4 ITA No. 610/JP/2018 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Jaipur.
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – The ITO Ward 4(3), Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 610/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
5 ITA No. 610/JP/2018 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Jaipur.
More judgments on Section 80C
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Trinath Mandal, Koriya vs ITO, Ward-1(1), BilaspurITA 717/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026