Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 347/JP/2015
PER SHRI KUL BHART, JM.
These three Appeals filed by the different Assessee is directed against the
order of Ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, Jaipur dated 27.02.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year
2 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.
2007-08. Since the common grounds are involved in these appeals. All these
appeals are taken up together and disposed of by consolidated order.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts are
identical in all these cases. Therefore, He submitted that ITA No. 348/JP/2015 may
be taken up as a lead case.
ITA No. 348/JP/2015.
Therefore, first we take up ITA No. 348/JP/2015.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 52,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 90,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,47,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
Ground nos. 1 to 4 Are inter-connected. Therefore, all grounds are being
disposed of.
Briefly, stated the facts are that the assessement was reopened and the
assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 19th March, 2013.
While framing the assessment the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee
3 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.
along with other two brothers namely Sh. Hanuman and Sh. Gopal, purchased land
for Rs. 1,87,20,000/- on 24/05/2006. The land was jointly purchased. The
assessee was asked to furnish the source of investment vide order dated
25/02/2013. The assessee stated that the investment was made out of own funds
of the assessee and his brothers and loans from 19 other persons. It was stated
that assessee and his two brothers out of own source invested Rs. 40 lakhs and a
sum of Rs. 1,47,20,000/- was invested out of the loan fund. It was stated that the
assessee’s sale in investment came to Rs. 62.40 lacs excluding the registration
authorities. It is observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had taken loan
of Rs. 52.40 lacs. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of such investment
and after considering the material available record the Assessing Officer assessed
total income of Rs. 65,27,930/- and made addition on account of unexplained
registration of Rs. 3,74,400/- and unexplained income of Rs. 8 lacs inflated
agricultural income of Rs. 90,000/-.
Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who
after considering the submission dismissed the appeal. Now, the assessee is in
further appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in course of Assessment proceedings,
the assessee had furnished confirmation of all 19 persons in respect of the loan
given by them and drew our attention to Paper Book Page No. 7-25. The
assessee produced all these persons before the AO except Sh. Mangilala who had
expired but the AO recorded the statements of only 4 persons and did not recocrd
the statements of other persons for the reasons best known to them. He submitted
4 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.
before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an evidence of their agricultural income by
filing their Girdawari report. From the same it can be noted that these persons have
substantial agricultural landholding and agricultural income which proves their
creditworthiness. Therefore, without any material prove otherwise, addition made
by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is unjustified.
On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representatives opposed the
submissions and submitted that these evidences were not furnished before the
authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record
and gone through the order of the authorities below. We find that the assessee had
placed on record Girdawari report PB L-1 to L19 of the people who had claimed to
have given loan to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, during the
course of hearing stated that these evidences would prove the creditworthiness of
the persons who have given loan to the assessee. It is contended that matter may
be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh; on this Ld. D/R
has no objections. Therefore, considering the totality of the fact, we set aside the
assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to frame denovo assessment,
after verifying the claim of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purpose.
Now we take up assessee’s appeal i.e. in ITA No. 347/JP/2015 and ITA
No. 349/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2007-08.
Both the appeals’ grounds are reproduced as under:-
ITA No. 347/JP/2015
5 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:_
“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 42,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,74,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
ITA No. 349/JP/2015
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 52,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,74,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
The facts are identical in both the appeals as were in ITA No.
348/JP/2015. The parties have adopted the same arguments. In this case also
6 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.
we set aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer for framing denovo
assessment. Both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all three appeal i.e. in ITA Nos. 347/JP/2015, 348/JP/2015 &
349/JP/2015 are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 29th day of May 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( dqy Hkkjr) ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 29 /05/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Mahadev Yadav, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur. 2. The Respondent- The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
7 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.