SH. TRILOK CHAND SAIN,DAUSA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 1264/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the sale deeds were in the name of Shri Purshottam Bairwa, and he had explained the source of investment, and further, the same investment was subsequently assessed in the hands of Shri Purshottam Bairwa and M/s. Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to a Section 263 order, the addition in the hands of the assessee was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,15,92,040/- in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in land, presuming the assessee was the real investor. The land was purchased in the name of Shri Purshottam Bairwa, who claimed to have used his own sources and sale proceeds of plots for the investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained investment in land is sustainable in the hands of the assessee when the property was purchased in another person's name and subsequently assessed in that person's hands.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 131,Section 263,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1264/JP/2024

Hearing: 28/01/2025Pronounced: 04/04/2025

PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 16.08.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,15,92,040/- made by A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →