INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

ITA 1149/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 March 2025AY 2017-18104 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. On the Assessee's grounds 3 to 9, the Tribunal held that the property in dispute belonged to the firm and not the individual assessee. Since the CIT(A) had already considered the set-off of that property and allowed the benefit to the assessee, these grounds were allowed, leading to the deletion of the addition. Regarding Assessee's grounds 1 and 2 concerning Section 153C notice, the Tribunal noted that information was received on 18.09.2018. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, the AO could only take action under Section 153C for the six assessment years preceding the year of information receipt (excluding the year of receipt). The Tribunal calculated the permissible assessment years for action under Section 153C. However, since the appeal was allowed on merits, the technical ground regarding the Section 153C notice became academic and was left open. For the Revenue's appeal, Ground 1 was dismissed as the Tribunal had already directed the deletion of the addition while dealing with the Assessee's grounds. Grounds 2 and 3 of the Revenue, challenging the CIT(A)'s findings on the cost of acquisition for AY 2016-17, were held to be academic because the issue related to the purchase and sale of land by the firm, and the appeal of the firm was not before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, heard cross-appeals filed by the Revenue (ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur) and the Assessee (Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad) for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, dated 10-07-2024. The Assessee's appeal was delayed by one day due to technical issues with online filing, which the Tribunal condoned. The core of the dispute involves additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) related to land transactions and alleged on-money payments. A search action on the Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016, to which the Assessee belonged, unearthed documents related to land dealings. The AO issued a notice under Section 143(2) and subsequently made additions based on seized documents and statements.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.1,01,18,885/- to the assessee for AY 2017-18 by determining the cost of acquisition in AY 2016-17 and setting it off against AY 2017-18 income, despite the receipt of on-money of Rs.1,43,40,000/- not being disputed by the CIT(A)? (Revenue's Ground 1). This issue turns on the determination of cost of acquisition and its applicability across assessment years. 2. Whether the CIT(A) travelled beyond jurisdiction by holding for AY 2016-17 that the total cost of acquisition was Rs.2.5 Crores, subject to further orders, when the appeal for AY 2016-17 was still pending before the CIT(A)? (Revenue's Ground 2). This concerns the scope of the CIT(A)'s powers and the pendency of related appeals. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in giving a finding on the cost of acquisition of property in AY 2016-17 and estimating it at Rs.2.5 crores when the same matter was pending before the CIT(A)? (Revenue's Ground 3). This is similar to Ground 2, focusing on the premature determination of cost. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, holding that the AO of the other person shall issue notice under Section 153C for the earlier six years excluding the year of information receipt, thus violating judicial discipline? (Assessee's Ground 1). This concerns the validity of notice under Section 153C based on the timing of information receipt. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the plea that notice under Section 153C was required to be issued following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, and thus the assessment deserves to be quashed for want of a valid notice? (Assessee's Ground 2). This is a procedural challenge to the assessment based on Section 153C. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition made by the AO in violation of principles of natural justice? (Assessee's Ground 3). 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of considering sale deeds belonging to firm M/s Eminent Build Developers in the hands of the assessee? (Assessee's Ground 4). This questions the attribution of firm property to the individual assessee. 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting additions to Rs.42,21,115/- from Rs.1,43,40,000/- made solely on statements without substantive evidence? (Assessee's Ground 5). This challenges the basis of the addition. 9. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting additions without allowing cross-examination of Shri Chandra Prakash Agarwal, who admitted to paying on-money? (Assessee's Ground 6). This raises an issue of denial of natural justice. 10. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting additions despite contradictory statements regarding sale consideration of land? (Assessee's Ground 7). 11. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the AO was not justified in applying Section 68? (Assessee's Ground 8). 12. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not holding that Section 68 was not applicable to the assessee? (Assessee's Ground 9). This challenges the applicability of Section 68. Assessee's Contentions: Relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh regarding Section 153C notice. Argued that the assessment should be quashed due to lack of proper notice, violation of natural justice, and incorrect attribution of firm property. Contended that additions were based on statements without substantive evidence and without allowing cross-examination. Argued that Section 68 was wrongly applied. Revenue's Contentions: Argued that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the addition by determining the cost of acquisition in AY 2016-17 and setting it off against AY 2017-18. Contended that the CIT(A) travelled beyond jurisdiction by making findings on the cost of acquisition for AY 2016-17 while that appeal was pending.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 131,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 132A,Section 133A,Section 132(4),Section 153C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(16)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,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.A
For Respondent: DR a fu/k Zkfjrh dh vk sj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Parth Patni, C.A
Hearing: 20/02/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA. No. 1149/JPR/2024
ITA. No. 1192/JPR/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM Both these appeals are t

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 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →