SHRI JOHRI LAL SODHANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1046/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 July 2018AY 2011-1221 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was uncalled for. It noted that the sale deed reflected the actual consideration, and without proving that the assessee invested more than what was recorded, the addition based on an earlier agreement was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a plot of land for Rs. 76 lakhs, but the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) added Rs. 92.33 lakhs to his income, treating it as undisclosed income based on an earlier sale agreement that indicated a higher rate per square yard. The AO relied on this earlier agreement to determine the actual consideration paid.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer can add the difference between the sale deed consideration and an earlier sale agreement consideration as undisclosed income without proving actual investment beyond the recorded amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1046/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 11/07/2018

per the order sheet dated 11-05-2010 (PBP 30-31). All these facts

shows that the earlier agreement of June 2009 was for the different

ITA No.1046/JP/2017 Shri Johari Lal Sodhani vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur portion of the land. The agreement of June 2009 was of that portion of

the land on which there was an existing house whereas the subsequent

agreement of 15-01-2010 was for the vacant portion of the land on a

portion of which there was an encumbrance by way of registered

agreement entered by Shri Rajeev Ratan Shukla with Smt. Kamla Devi

Ghiya. In these facts, the rate as per the agreement of June 2009

cannot be applied to the land purchased by the assessee in pursuance

to agreement dated 15-01-2010. It is also noted that no material was

brought on record by the lower authorities to establish that assessee

had paid any amount over and above that recorded in the registered

sale deed dated 12-05-2010 (PBP 43-51). The AO had made the

addition u/s 69 of the Act. As per this section, addition can be made

by the AO where the assessee offers no explanation about the nature/

source of investment or the explanation offered by him is not

satisfactory. However, in the present case, as discussed above,

explanation furnished by the assessee is satisfactory and the AO has

not brought any material on record to disprove the explanation given

by the assessee. The cases (supra) relied on by the ld.AR of the

assessee are squarely applicable and therefore, the addition made by

the AO cannot be sustained. In view of the above facts, circumstances

ITA No.1046/JP/2017 Shri Johari Lal Sodhani vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur of the case and the judgements (supra), we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20 -07-2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ fot; iky jko ½ ¼HkkxpUn½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Bhagchand) U;kf;d lnL; /Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20 /07/ 2018 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Johari Lal Sodhani, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1046 /JP/2017 ) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →