GURDEEP SINGH,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1, JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 14.06.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Jammu dated
26.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed
belatedly by 590 (five hundred ninety) days. He has filed an explanation along with an
affidavit where it has been stated that the earlier income tax matters were handled by
Sh. Kapil Aggarwal and the entire appeal folder along with the requisite documents
were in his possession. But due to unfortunate demise of the late Mr. Aggarwal, the
assessee was totally unaware of existence of the appellate order passed u/s 250 of the
Act on 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the assessee appointed a new counsel with the help of
whom this particular appeal is being filed with a delay of 590 (five hundred ninety)
days.
The ld. DR objected to the same, considering the enormous delay of 590 days,
he submitted that proper and sufficient cause has not been shown by the assessee.
We have considered the application for condonation and the reasons put-forth
therein, and we are not fully convinced with the reasons put-forth and we are of the
opinion that the intentional neglect is there on the part of the assessee. However,
considering the unfortunate demise of the chartered accountant, Sh. Kapil Aggarwal
and also in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for
hearing on merits.
However, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where cost should be imposed
and we hereby imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the ‘Prime Minister’s
3 I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11
National Relief Fund’ to be paid within 15 days from the date of communication of
this order (evidenced to be submitted before the JAO).
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:
“(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250 dated 14.06.2023 has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO to the tune of Rs. 484563/- on account of 8% profit on account of difference in gross receipts and Rs. 450000/- on account of cash credits u/s 68.
(2) That the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad in law as the reopening has been made merely on the basis of AIR information.
(3) That the CIT(A) failed to consider the replies of the appellant that investment of Rs. 6.07 crores were made out of unsecured loans received from parties and the appellant has duly submitted details of the person along with the PAN of the persons. Therefore, addition of Rs. 484563.00 i.e 8% profit on account of difference in gross receipts of Rs. 6057040/- is based on wrong basis.
(4) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of reassessment made by the AO u/s 148 ignoring the fact that the assessment in the case of the assessee stood already completed u/s 143(3) and there was no new material which could warrant action u/s 147.
(5) That the addition of Rs. 450000/-made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 confirmed by CIT(A) only on the basis that no PAN was submitted without appreciating that the said amount is part of regular books of accounts.
(6) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
4 I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. There are six grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 and the
main grievance is the addition of Rs. 4,84,563/- on account of 8% estimated profits
arising out of difference in gross receipt and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of
cash credit u/s 68.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made an advance of Rs.6.07
crores to ‘DGM Geology and Mining Department’, J & K Government as royalty
collection fees for the purpose of collecting royalty from sale of sand, bajri and allied
materials, from the river beds. The advance as per the assessee has been made by
obtaining loans from various persons whose PAN number, name and details has been
furnished. Upon verification in course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the
genuineness and the creditworthiness of one of the loan creditors “Lagbir Singh S/o
Jagat Singh”, who has advanced an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- could not be
substantiated, leading to its addition.
Apart from the above, the AO has also added back an amount calculated @ 8%
of difference in gross receipt disclosed and actual receipts which amounted to
Rs.4,84,563/-.
The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate
authority in absence of any representation on at least three separate dates of hearing as
evident from para 1.5.3 of the appellate order without any adjudication on merits.
5 I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 11. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in Form No.
However, before this Tribunal, the ld. AR has not submitted any paper book and
has simply prayed for deletion of the said addition and has not filed any documents
before us to establish the creditworthiness of the disputed loan creditor.
As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the ld. first
appellate authority and we direct the assessee to file necessary documentary evidences
to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and to co-operate in appellate
proceedings and to prove his case forthwith.
Since, the matter is remanded back to the ld. first appellate authority all legal
issues are also kept open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 12.03.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T
6 I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11
