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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 March 2025AY 2016-1784 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the lead case of ITA No. 115/JP/2024 and subsequent appeals. For ITA No. 117/JP/2024, the Tribunal allowed ground No. 2, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/-. The reasoning was that the amounts were covered by the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee, which was available with the AO and not disputed. This applied to repayments and payments made out of available cash. Similarly, for ground No. 3 concerning an addition of Rs. 76,000/- (AO made addition of Rs. 62,000/-), the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, holding that the AO estimated income without basis or supporting material from seized documents. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Section 115BBE was consequential and ground No. 5 was general. Consequently, the appeal in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 was allowed. For ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for ground No. 2 & 3 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024 to the similar grounds raised in these appeals, allowing these appeals as well. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention the outcome for grounds related to on-money payments or short-term capital gains in the provided excerpt, but the overall disposition indicates a favorable outcome for the assessee on the discussed grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Jaipal Singh, filed six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur. These appeals pertain to assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The orders under challenge arise from assessments passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. The appeals were heard together as they involved inter-related and identical issues, with variations in disputed figures. The assessee's appeals were initially delayed by two days, which was condoned by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide on several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for various assessment years. The primary issues revolved around: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged on-money paid for property purchases, undisclosed investments, and short-term capital gains. Specifically, for AY 2013-14, whether an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- for alleged on-money and Rs. 50,000/- for unproven identity/genuineness/creditworthiness was justified. 2. For AY 2014-15, whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's findings regarding the purchase and sale of a plot leading to a short-term capital gain of Rs. 2,52,000/-, and confirming additions of Rs. 11,00,000/- for alleged cash payment and Rs. 29,50,000/- for unproven identity/genuineness/creditworthiness. 3. For AY 2015-16, whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs. 21,11,000/- for unexplained investment in agricultural land, Rs. 7,18,000/- for unproven identity/genuineness/creditworthiness, and Rs. 76,000/- for alleged interest paid/received. 4. For AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions for loans, other interest income, and unproven identity/genuineness/creditworthiness. 5. In all relevant years, whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the confirmed additions. The assessee contended that the additions were made without cogent material and that explanations were provided through cash flow statements. The revenue, through the CIT-DR, did not present specific counter-arguments on all points during the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 →