VIKASH SABHARWAL HUF,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 927/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.927/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikas Sabharwal HUF 34, Pushp Vihar, Ferozepur Road, Opp- Shiv Mandir, Canal Road, Ludhiana- PB-141002 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAFHV6640E अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO Ward 1(5), Ludhiana Punjab निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the subject matter of the appeal had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 740/Chd/2023. Therefore, the current appeal was deemed infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC that sustained an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69A for AY 2017-18. During the hearing, it was submitted that a Coordinate Bench had already disposed of a similar matter for the same AY.

What were the issues?

Whether the current appeal is infructuous as the subject matter has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench for the same Assessment Year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vikas Sabharwal HUF बनाम The ITO 34, Pushp Vihar, Ferozepur Road, Ward 1(5), Ludhiana Opp- Shiv Mandir, Canal Road, Punjab Ludhiana- PB-141002 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFHV6640E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/01/2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/01/2025 आदेश/Order

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 04/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 against the sustenance of addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act.

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the subject matter has already been disposed off by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dt. 13/09/2024 in for A.Y. 2017-18 wherein the relevant findings read as under:

12. We have examined the records of both the lower authorities i.e; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) and we are of the considered view that on income of Rs. 30,00,000/- as disclosed under IDS 2016 the necessary taxes as applicable have been paid by the assessee and form 4 is proof enough. However since this document was absent both before Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) we deem it fit that its contents be verified and if upon due verification of all facts including payment of taxes thereon are found correct then a closure should be given to this dispute between he assessee and Income Tax Department so that a quiteous prevail. 12.1 We therefore set aside the “impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of Form 4(supra) which should be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from date of receipt of the copy of this order of Tribunal so that issue is closed once and for all.

13.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms as aforesaid. As a matter of abundant caution we make it clear that save and except verification (supra) of Form 4 no other exercise detrimental to the interest of assessee would be carried out in so far as this matter is concerned.

14.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

3.

It was submitted that apparently, the assessee has filed the subject appeal through the e-fling portal and a hard copy of the appeal was also filed before the

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →