ITO WD-3(5), BOKARO vs. SRI NIRMAL SINGH, BOKARO
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be reasoned. The CIT(A) had concluded that the amount was received for land purchase and disbursed to villagers, thus not taxable in the assessee's hands.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1.25 crore to the assessee's income, considering the source, nature, genuineness, and creditworthiness of a credit entry in the assessee's books of account as not established. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after a remand report from the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.25 crore made by the AO on account of an unexplained credit entry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S.SAINI & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
1 ITA No.57/Ran/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.57/Ran/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 ITO, Ward-3(5), Bokaro vs Sri Nirmal Singh, Prop: M/s J.K.Enterprises, 53, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro-827001 PAN No. : ARUPS 2858 R .. Respondent (Appellant) Revenue by Shri A.K.Mohanty,JCIT(Jr. DR) Assessee by Shri Manish Mishra, Adv. Date of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018
O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM:
The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A),
Hazaribag, dated 06.12.2016 for the assessment year 2012-2013 on
the following grounds of appeal :-
“1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1.25 crore as the source, nature, genuineness & creditworthiness ”of the given credit entry in the books of account of the assessee was not established
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of
income electronically on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of
Rs.10,01,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and
the AO issued notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act to the assessee.
2 ITA No.57/Ran/2017 Accordingly, the AO made various additions and assessed the total
income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,98,010/- and passed order
u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2015.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal
before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee
appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions
made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of
the assessee and the findings of AO, partly allowed the appeal of the
assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an
appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us ld. DR supported the order of AO and submitted that
source, nature, genuineness and creditworthiness of the given credit entry
in the books of account of the assessee was not established and therefore
prayed for allowing the appeal of Revenue.
On the other hand, ld. AR supported the order of CIT(A).
We have heard the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material
on record. We find that the CIT(A) dealt on the disputed issue has called
for the remand report from the AO and the AO has submitted the remand
report from which the CIT(A) observed that since the entire sum of money
so received have been disbursed to 105 villagers/land owners as per list
submitted by the assessee duly evidenced by sale agreements for
acquiring different acres of land in a village, named Chandankyari, the
3 ITA No.57/Ran/2017 taxability of the amounts in the hands of the assessee does not arise in the
facts and circumstances of the case and deleted the addition. The
observation of the CIT(A) in this regard is as under :-
“3.3 In view of the above remand report of the Assessing Officer duly forwarded and endorsed by the JCIT vide letter dated 25/11/2016, I find that the contentions of the appellant are acceptable. The addition of Rs. 1.25 crore on this issue is, therefore, not warranted in the hands of the appellant for the reasons that the money was received from Koyela Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for purchase of land from the villagers at Bokaro for setting up of a Thermal Power Station. In the balance- sheet, 1.25 crore was shown as an advance received for land purchase on the asset side and liability was shown to Koyela Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd. against the same. Since the entire sums of money so received have been disbursed to 105 villagers/land owners as per list submitted by the appellant duly evidenced by sale agreements for acquiring different acres of land in a village, named Chandankyari, the taxability of the amounts in the hands of the appellant does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete the addition of Rs.1.25 crore. The appellant succeeds on the grounds of appeal on this issue.”
During the course of hearing the ld. DR has only supported the order
of Assessing Officer and could not bring any new cogent evidence to
controvert the findings of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, we are of
the opinion that having considered the remand report and findings of the
AO and submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) has passed a reasoned
4 ITA No.57/Ran/2017 order, which we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal of
Revenue.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/11 /2018 Sd/- Sd/- (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated 27/11/2018 Prakash Kumar Mishra , Sr. Ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant – ITO, Ward-3(5), Bokaro 2. The Respondent – Sri Nirmal Singh, Prop: M/s J.K.Enterprises, 53, Co- operative Colony, Bokaro-827001 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT , concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026