CHANDRA KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to reapproach if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted. The dismissal was based on the assessee's submission regarding the scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO. The assessee had opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had deposited the tax and submitted the relevant forms.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO were based on third-party statements without cross-verification and whether the assessment was bad in law due to mechanical reopening. The assessee also contested additions on account of alleged bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 69

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, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Hearing: 19.05.2025Pronounced: 21.05.2025

A.Y. 2011-12 Chandra Kumar Jain, vs. NFAC, Delhi, (Jurisdiction Prop. M/s Chandra & Sons, 14, 121 Officer, ITO, Damoh, M.P. Kirana Merchant, Bakoli Kirana Line, Damoh, M.P. PAN:ACJPJ7460N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Revenue by: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 29.12.2023 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO, Ward, Damoh dated 12.12.2018. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO being based on third party's statements without allowing their cross verification and hence addition made are against law AND natural justice as has been held in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962]

45. ITR 206 by Supreme Court. Hence additions of Rs 4,65,700/-and Rs 10,525,/- may kindly be deleted.

2. On the facts & circumstances of the case, LD CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions made by AO of Rs. 4,76,225/-without considering the fact that bill issued by M/s Narmada Sugar Pvt Ltd Narsinghpur.as considered to be that of assessee was not in assessee name and hence addition was based on mere assumptions and presumptions.

A.Y. 2011-12 Chandra Kumar Jain 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case& law, Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,76,225/- under section 69 towards 100% bogus purchase instead of restricting to profit element as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision of N.Κ. Industries Ltd.

4.

On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 was based on third party information & in mechanical mode & hence assessment order is bad in law & needs to be quashed. The assessment order was bad in law for other reasons too.

5.

On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that in alike cases of other assessee in similar facts and circumstances AO has considered part of alike bills as to be additions and not 100% amount of wrong bills as are considered as addition in assessee hands being against natural justice and hence addition of Rs. 4,76,225/ may kindly be deleted.

6.

On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that AO has not doubted the sales of assessee and neither has reconciled the stock and hence mere profit element can be added in the hands of assessee max.

7.

On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition under section 69 on basis of suspicion or conjecture of AO being against Supreme Court in case of Kishin chand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITD 713(SC).

8.

On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that AO failed to consider that neither banking transaction towards alleged bogus purchase was from the bank account of assessee nor the stock delivery place etc. of so called bogus purchases was in assessee premises and hence addition made of Rs.4,76,225/- may kindly be deleted.

9.

On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs 4,76,225/- as deemed gross profit on so called bogus purchase of Rs.4,65,700/- without considering the fact that purchase was not in name of assessee and hence addition of gross profit of Rs.10,525,/ may kindly be deleted.

10.

The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.”

2.

When the case was called out for hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCA submitted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and that Form No.2 had already been issued by the PCIT, Jabalpur, in response to which, the assessee had deposited the tax and submitted Form No.3. It was submitted that Form No. 4 was still awaited. However, the assessee was prepared to withdraw the appeal subject to liberty being given to reapproach the Tribunal in case From No.4 was not issued.

3.

Sh. Alok Bhura, ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →