VISHNU PRASAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1091/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 September 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO under Section 68 for cash deposits and also for the difference between DLC and asset cost. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte without proper opportunity and consideration of submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without affording proper opportunity of hearing and considering the assessee's submissions. Applicability of Section 50C in case of transfer under Section 45(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 45(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1091/JP/2016

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

This appeal by the by the assessee is filed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III,

Jaipur dated 16.09.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has

raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- made by AO u/s 68 alleging cash deposits in bank account as undisclosed income.

1.1. That ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- ignoring the submission of assessee that the said amount represented sale consideration received by assessee for sale of land. 1.2. That ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- ignoring the evidences produced in the shape of sale agreement, merely for the reason that agreement was not

2 ITA No. 1091/JP/2016 Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur.

registered. Appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by AO u/s 68 alleging cash deposits in bank account of assessee as undisclosed income.

2.1. That ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by AO completely ignoring the submission of the assessee that the cash deposits were made out of sum received back of advance from one Shri Hanuman, to whom advance was made for purchase of land in earlier years.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,65,836/- being difference between DLC and cost of asset transferred by assessee to firm in which he was partner.

3.1. That ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition ignoring the submission made by assessee that provisions of section 50C are not applicable in respect of transfer made in accordance with section 45(3) of the Act.

4.

That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that

the ld. CIT (A) has decided the appeal of the assessee ex parte without affording

proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) while

deciding the appeal has not taken into consideration the written submissions of the

assessee. He, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the

matter be restored back to his file for deciding afresh after providing opportunity to

the assessee.

3.

On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below

and opposed the submissions.

3 ITA No. 1091/JP/2016 Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur.

4.

After hearing rival submissions and going through the orders of the

authorities below, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order of the ld.

CIT (A). The matter is restored back to ld. CIT (A) for deciding the same on merits,

after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 14.09.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 14/09/2017. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – The DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 1091/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA No. 1091/JP/2016 Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →