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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 120/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 March 2025AY 2018-1928 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding additions based on alleged on-money, cash payments, and unexplained investments (Grounds 1 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 1 & 2 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024), the Tribunal, after examining the assessee's submissions regarding cash flow statements and available cash, found that the AO had not disputed these explanations. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete these additions. This principle applies mutatis mutandis to similar grounds in ITA Nos. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024, and 120/JP/2024. Regarding additions based on seized Annexure AS (exhibits 2 and 3) where identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness were questioned (Ground 2 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 3 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 1 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), the Tribunal, by applying the same reasoning as for the initial investments, directed the deletion of these additions. Specifically for ITA No. 117/JP/2024, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/-, as the amounts were covered by the cash flow statement and were repayments or explained by available cash. This decision was extended to similar grounds in other appeals. Regarding additions of interest paid/received (Ground 3 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 2 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 2 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 62,000/- (as stated in the CIT(A)'s order, though the ground mentioned Rs. 76,000/-) as it was estimated without basis or cogent supporting material from the seized material. This also applied to similar grounds in other appeals. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE (Ground 3 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Ground 4 in ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Ground 4 in ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 118/JP/2024, Ground 1 in ITA No. 119/JP/2024, and Ground 1 in ITA No. 120/JP/2024), this was held to be consequential and was not adjudicated separately as the primary additions were deleted. All six appeals were allowed.

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, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. These appeals challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Jaipur, which in turn arose from orders dated 31.12.2019 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were heard together as they involved inter-related and common issues, with ITA No. 115/JP/2024 taken as the lead case. A minor delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law and mixed law and fact: 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made by the AO on account of alleged on-money paid for purchase of a flat (ITA No. 115/JP/2024, Rs. 40,00,000/-), alleged cash payment for plot purchase and short-term capital gain (ITA No. 116/JP/2024, Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 2,52,000/- respectively), unexplained investment for agricultural land (ITA No. 117/JP/2024, Rs. 21,11,000/-), and other alleged undisclosed income from loans and interest (various amounts across appeals). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions on the basis of seized Annexure AS (exhibits 2 and 3) where the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the concerned persons were allegedly not proved (various amounts across appeals). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the confirmed additions (various grounds across appeals). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that additions were made without basis or cogent material from seized documents, and that cash flow statements, where available, explained the transactions. The assessee relied on cash flow statements and submitted that certain entries were repayments or covered by available cash. The assessee also contended that interest income was estimated without supporting material. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the CIT-DR, did not controvert the assessee's submission to take ITA No. 115/JP/2024 as a lead case. Specific arguments for the revenue were not detailed in the provided text.

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 →