JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 March 2025AY 2014-1584 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding additions related to alleged on-money payments, undisclosed income from plot sale, unexplained investments, and unproved identity/genuineness/creditworthiness of parties, the Tribunal, after considering the assessee's submissions and the cash flow statements available with the AO, found no reason to sustain these additions. Specifically, for an addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- (ITA No. 117/JP/2024, ground 2), the Tribunal directed the AO to delete it, finding that the amounts were either repayments or covered by the cash flow statement. Similarly, for an addition of Rs. 62,000/- (ITA No. 117/JP/2024, ground 3) representing estimated undisclosed interest income, the Tribunal directed its deletion, stating it was made without basis. The Tribunal held that the charge of tax under Section 115BBE was consequential and would not require adjudication if the primary additions were deleted. Consequently, the appeals in ITA Nos. 117/JP/2024, 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024 were allowed. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings for ITA Nos. 115/JP/2024 and 116/JP/2024, but the concluding remarks indicate all six appeals were disposed of based on the reasoning applied to ITA No. 117/JP/2024.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Jaipal Singh, filed six appeals (ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Jaipur. These appeals pertain to assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The orders under challenge were passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-2, Jaipur, under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated for hearing as they involved inter-related and identical issues, with variations in disputed figures. A delay of two days in filing the appeals was condoned.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law and mixed law and fact: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged on-money paid for property purchases, undisclosed income from sale of a plot, unexplained investments, and unproved identity/genuineness/creditworthiness of persons involved in transactions, as per grounds raised in ITA Nos. 115/JP/2024, 116/JP/2024, 117/JP/2024, 118/JP/2024, and 119/JP/2024. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the confirmed additions, as per grounds raised in ITA Nos. 115/JP/2024, 116/JP/2024, 117/JP/2024, 118/JP/2024, and 119/JP/2024. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that additions were made without cogent supporting material from seized documents, and that certain amounts were repayments or covered by cash flow statements available with the AO. The assessee also contended that interest income was estimated without basis. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not raise specific objections against taking a lead case and did not controvert the assessee's submission regarding the delay in filing appeals. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on the substantive issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)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,

For Appellant: CA &, CA राजस्व की ओर से /
Hearing: 28/01/2025Pronounced: 11/03/2025
1.

Based on these observations we direct ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- made as income of the assessee and thereby allow ground no. 2 raised by the assessee.

34.

Vide ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 76,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to that ground raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) reads as under :

“8.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:-

In this regard Rs. 76,000/- is mentioned in the Ground No. 6 of Form no. 35 by the appellant. On perusal of assessment order and submission of the appellant it

I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The Id. AO has discussed this issue in detail in para 8.8 of the assessment order. The appellant in the appeal has not made any substantive submissions on the issue and has merely raised this ground of Appeal without explaining the alleged factual or legal error in the decision of the learned assessing officer.

The Id. AO has stated in this regard in the assessment order that ……………..As far as interest paid/ received against the persons tabulated in Table # 2 is concerned, since, onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it, the interest earned by the assessee in the name of such persons is treated as undisclosed interest income of the assessee and is taxed accordingly."

This issue is also consequential to the issue as discussed in pre paragraphs on the issue of addition of the amounts mentioned in table 2 to the income of the appellant.

Thus corresponding interest income is taxable in the hands of the appellant.

Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.”

35. In support of this ground ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission contending that the ld. AO has estimated the income as undisclosed interest income for an amount of Rs. 62,000/- without any basis and cogent supporting material available on record and seized and therefore, in the search assessment without placing anything on record from the seized material that the assessee has earned any interest the same cannot be added. Considering that aspect of the matte we direct the raised by the assessee is allowed.

36. Ground no. 4 raised by the assessee charge of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act which is consequential in nature and ground no 5 being general does not require our adjudication.

Based on this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.

117/JP/2024 stands allowed.

37.

Going further to we take up the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2016-17 and for assessment year 2017-18 and for assessment year 2018-19. In these three appeals the assessee has taken effective two ground one is related to the addition of loan and other interest income estimated. Since the bench has considered this ground in detailed while dealing with the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2015-16 and the bench has given the detailed finding while dealing with the ground no. 2 & 3 of that appeal. The ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in this three the appeals are exactly similar on set of facts and therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the finding and facts here again and therefore, the decision taken by the bench vide ground no. shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ground observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024 and 120/JP/2024 stands allowed.

In terms of this observation all the six appeal of the assessee are disposed off.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/03/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/03/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Jaipal Singh, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →