DINESH KUMAR TIWARI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

1. The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 17.09.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

The relevant facts in this case are as follows: “A survey action u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Mahadev Cars Pvt. Ltd. During the survey proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has purchased a car in cash during the year under consideration. Statement on oath was recorded and during statement on oath and the assessee accepted that the amount of Rs.12,65,000/- invested in purchasing of car was the undisclosed income for the year under consideration. 1. In the written submission filed by the assessee, it was submitted that the amount of investment in car is out of sale proceeds of old car and out of business receipts. 1. The assessee was asked to furnish the evidence in respect of transfer of ownership of old car said to have been sold during the year, capital account and balance sheet for asstt. year 2015-16,2016-17 and 2017-18 alongwith justification of gross receipts shown in the return of income to substantiate the claim that the purchase of car was out of sale proceeds and business receipts. 2. The assessee has filed written submission enclosing therewith the required documents. The registration certificate filed by the assessee in respect of purchase of Swift Desire Car CG 04 DL 0102 bears the name of the assessee . But on going through the Government website M Parivahan, the name of the owner is seen as "Baidhyanath Shah" in respect of vehicle in question

From the capital account filed by the assessee, it is observed that the profit on sale of car is shown at Rs. 1,53,375/-. However, on going through the ITR -4S filed for A.Y.2016-17 no such income was offered for taxation.

Further, during the A.Y 2016-17, the assessee has filed 3 return of income: Original return was filed on 28/12/2016 in ITR-4 which is later on revised on 16/03/2017 & 13/05/2017 in ITR-4S. The profit declared in A.Y 2016-17 is Rs.2,50,000/- on gross receipt of Rs.11,00,000/- which is around 22% of gross received. In earlier years also, assessee has disclosed income around 14 to 22% of gross receipt. The 4 Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

I have carefully considered the facts and issues emanating in this case, heard the submissions of the parties herein. The A.O had doubted the sale of old car by referring to the government website and RTO documents, wherein the vehicle was registered in the name of Baidhyanath Shah, whereas the assessee had submitted document showing that vehicle was sold to Raj Kumar Tiwari. That answering this discrepancy, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the new owner may not have properly completed the procedure in RTO office, for which, the assessee should not be penalized or that the sale transaction should not be doubted. The Ld. Counsel also brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee had in his return of income in ‘Schedule DPM’ at ‘Sr. No.8’ disclosed the total consideration received during the year from sale of the car at Rs.3,80,000/-. Similarly, the tax has been offered at Rs.1,53,375/- at ‘Column No.16’ in the return

The A.O had also doubted the various revised returns that were filed by the assessee and the same findings were upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) /NFAC. However, the Revenue had failed to point out why they have stated that such filing of revised returns are an afterthought and concocted story to cover up the claim of cash payment since all the revised returns filed were valid returns as per law and the Revenue had also not brought on record any evidence to corroborate the findings of the A.O or the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that such revised returns filed were nothing but to cover up the cash payments and a concocted story. That in absence of any adverse material on record, the valid revised returns which has been accepted by the Department could not be questioned and the findings of the Revenue authorities are merely based on suspicion. There cannot be any tax imposed only on the basis of suspicion in absence of corroborative evidences.

Considering the totality of the facts, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct the A.O to delete the additions from the hands of the assessee while providing appeal effect of this order.

As per the above terms, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.