VILAS BHAIRU VASKAR,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was previously restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, pending a High Court judgment. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The Department received information that the assessees were involved in an illegal money lending business and acquired properties. The Assessing Officer made additions to their income based on this information, which were sustained by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged money lending business are justified, especially when the matter was pending before the High Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश आदेश
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
These 12 appeals by the two different but related assessees relate to the A.Yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02. Since these appeals are based on similar facts and identical grounds, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar and Vilas Bhairu Vaskar
ITA Nos.2865 to 2869 & 2874/PUN/2017 – Shri Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar - A.Yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02 :
Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the Assessment year
1996-97 are that information was received by the Department
from the Police authorities that the assessee and his brother, the other assessee in this batch of appeals, earned huge money and acquired several properties therefrom. They were found to be involved in illegal money lending business and were convicted by the District Court, Pune. The Department conducted enquiries on the basis of such information which transpired that the assessee
and his brother had made investments in construction of bungalows, motor car and money lending business for different
years. The assessee pleaded denial of any such involvement in money lending business. Brushing aside such a denial, the AO
made an addition of Rs.1 lakh to the total income on account of money lending business for the year under consideration. Based
on similar facts, the AO made addition at the rate of Rs.1.00 lac
each in the other years involved in this batch. The Ld. CIT(A)
sustained such additions of Rs.1 lakh each despite the assessee’s
contention that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has had still not yet decided the appeal of the assessee on the issue of carrying on money lending activity, as claimed by the Revenue. The assessee
is aggrieved by the confirmation of such additions.
Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is seen that similar issue came up
for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of the other
assessee, namely, Sh. Vilas B. Waskar, for the A.Yrs. 1997-98 to 2001-02. Vide its order dated 30-11-2006, the Tribunal restored
Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar and Vilas Bhairu Vaskar
the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding this issue afresh
after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal further held that the ld. first appellate authority shall examine the judgment of Hon’ble High Court having bearing on money lending business within one month from the date of such judgment, a copy of which will be provided by the assessee and then decide the issue. The ld. AR contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is still awaited. The ld. DR did
not controvert this submission. Both the sides fairly agreed that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals are mutatis
mutandis similar to those considered and decided by the Tribunal
in the aforenoted order in ITA No.1556 to 1561/PUN/2004
passed, wherein the matter has been restored to the file of Ld.
CIT(A). In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully
following the precedent, I set aside the impugned combined order
and remit the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding this issue afresh in consonance with the directions given by the Tribunal in the aforenoted order.
In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical
purposes.
ITA Nos.2875 to 2880/PUN/2017 – Shri Vilas Bhairu Vaskar - A.Yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02 :
Both the sides are unison in submitting that the facts and circumstances of these appeals are mutatis mutandis similar to those filed by Shri Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar for the A.Yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02, dealt with hereinabove. In fact, both the sides adopted
the arguments advanced by them in the course of appeals filed by Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar and Vilas Bhairu Vaskar
Shri Sanjay Bhairu Vaskar and no separate submission was put
forth. Following the view taken herein above, I set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding this issue afresh in consonance with the directions given
by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee vide its order dated
30-11-2006. 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th November,
(R.S.SYAL) उपा"य"/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा"य" उपा"य" उपा"य"
पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 06th November, 2018 सतीश
आदेश आदेश क" आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ"ेिषत
अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;
""यथ" / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur 3. आयकर आयु" / The Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR 5. ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. //// आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
////
Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune *
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026