JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 259/GTY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 January 2025AY 1993-94Bench: SRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)21 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions based on pending criminal proceedings without final court findings were unjustified. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to him to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders confirming assessment orders for AYs 1992-93 and 1993-94. The additions were based on allegations in criminal charge sheets related to a scam, pending final court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether income can be assessed based on allegations in criminal charge sheets when the proceedings are not concluded. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions without final adjudication by the competent court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

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

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.

1.

1. 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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →