JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1195/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount, representing sundry debtors, should be treated as business income and not as an investment under Section 69. Consequently, the special tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee, a doctor and real estate developer, disclosed unexplained sundry debtors of Rs. 2,05,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated this as undisclosed income under Section 69 and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) upheld this.

What were the issues?

Whether the surrendered amount of sundry debtors should be taxed as business income or as an undisclosed investment under Section 69, and consequently, whether Section 115BBE is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1195/JP/2024

Hearing: 08/01/2025Pronounced: 11/02/2025
14.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside.

2.1, 3.1 and 3.2 in favour of the assessee. Ground no. 1 is technical therefore, we have not decided this ground of the appeal of the assessee as we have considered on the merits of its case. Ground no. 4 being consequential for levy of interest and ground no 5 being general in nature same is not adjudicated.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle, Kota 2. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1195/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →