JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI
Facts
The assessee's income was reassessed for AY 1992-93 and 1993-94, with additions for alleged involvement in the LOC scam and unexplained investment in a residential building. These additions were estimated by the Assessing Officer based on CBI charge sheets, even though criminal proceedings related to the alleged frauds were ongoing and sub-judice. The CIT(A) had largely sustained these additions, leading to the current appeals before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the criminal proceedings against the assessee regarding the alleged frauds were not yet finalized, and no clear finding on the actual benefit accrued to the assessee had been delivered by the competent courts. It held that additions to income based on estimations from such unconcluded criminal matters were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) with directions to await the final orders of the competent courts before reassessing the income.
Key Issues
Whether additions to income, based on estimated gains from alleged frauds, are justifiable when criminal proceedings are sub-judice and the quantum of actual benefit to the assessee is not conclusively determined by a competent court.
Sections Cited
250, 254, 143(3), 147, 148, 251, 154, 153(2A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री मनमोहन दास, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 258 & 259/GTY/2018 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Jugal Chandra Saikia ITO, Ward-1(3), Guwahati Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AUBPS5282M Appearances: Assessee represented by : Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Adv. Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : January 2nd, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : January 27th, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 1992-93 & 1993- 94 dated 29.06.2018, which have been passed against the assessment
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. No. 258/GTY/2018; AY 1992-93: “1 For that, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati ["CIT(A)" for short hereafter] has erred in law and in fact in dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the assessment order, as held by him to be passed under section 143 (3) read with Sections 147 and 254, by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO" for short hereafter) on the pleas that: (A) the Appellant could not submit the judgements of the sub-judge within the time limit; (B) the learned CIT(A) had no other option but to sustain the assessment order in view of the fact that the Honourable Court had not passed any orders in the said cases; and (C) the request of the appellant to keep the appeal pending in the interest of justice could not be entertained by the learned CIT(A) in view of governmental policies and norms to be followed in respect of disposal of appeals. 2. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati ["CIT(A)" for short hereafter] has erred in law and in fact in confirming the assessment order dated 20/12/2016 that was liable to be set aside and quashed. 3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the assessment of the revised income at Rs.340270/- against the returned income of Rs.47150/-. The addition to income of Rs.293117/- is liable to be deleted in full. As otherwise, the addition made to income is excessive. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in fact in confirming the assessment order whereby an amount of Rs.176177/- was added back to the income of the appellant in spite of the fact that such addition had been made relying solely on the
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata
