CHATRU,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 December 2024AY 2019-20Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 721 to 727/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 Shri Chatru, Nimod, Malarana Dunger, Sawai Madhpur. cuke Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BUVPC 1977 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : MS Alka Gautam 99 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were valid and that proper approval under Section 153D was obtained. The additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were also confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed seven appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-2022. The appeals arose from orders passed by the ACIT under various sections of the Income Tax Act, including 153A and 143(3). The core issues involved the validity of assessment orders passed under Section 153A, the requirement of approval under Section 153D, and additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of assessment orders passed under Section 153A and Section 153D, and the justification for additions made to the assessee's income under Section 68 and Section 69A due to unexplained cash.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 153D,Section 68,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 721 to 727/JPR/2023

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 23/10/2024Pronounced: 26/12/2024
1.

was assessed at Rs 1,50,000/-, As, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 4,42,500/-. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 2,92,500/-(442500-150000) was added to the total income of the assessee as per provision of section 68 of the IT Act and tax is charged as per provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act.

When the same was carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the action of the ld. AO by merely stating that “the appellant has failed to explain the source and nature of credit in the books of accounts. Therefore, the AO has rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act.”

We note that ld. AO accepted the agricultural income at the rate of Rs 12,000 per bigha, totalling per annum of Rs 1,50,000 and made addition of differential amount of Rs 2,92,500 (4,42,500- 1,50,000) u/s 68 and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE for taxing such income, which stood confirmed by ld.CIT(A). Thus, we note that the ld. AO has estimated the income without any supporting documents. Whereas the income offered by the assessee once accepted in part and thereafter the same is supported by bills for sale items sold the said agricultural income cannot be considered in part. If we calculate the income of Rs.

4,42,500/- dividing the land 12.5 vigha it comes to Rs. 35,400/- per vigha which is also fair and reasonable and does not require to disbelieved merely the assessee could not produce the bills whereas the bills where submitted but was disbelieved merely on account of the fact that same are not complete. Ld. AO when partly considered the income on set of evidence why not full. In view of the above, entire agriculture income stands explained and the addition of Rs 2,92,500/- made by ld.AO deserves to be deleted.

Further, and consequently invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE to such addition also being not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed.

16.

Ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee challenges the order of the assessing officer on technical grounds. Since we have considered the grounds of appeal on its merits this technical ground becomes educative in nature. Ground no. 10 being general does not require our finding. for A. Y. 2020-21 stands allowed.

17.

The bench noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the to 725/JPR/2023 and 727/JP/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 and A. Y.

2021-22 are covered and discussed in detailed while considering the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2020-21. Since we have allowed those grounds by a detailed finding herein above, we do not find it imperative to repeat the grounds, facts and the decision taken by us for the appeal of the assessee in to 725/JPR/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 and that similar grounds of appeal to appeal no. 727/JPR/2023 for A. Y. 2021-22 and therefore, the finding recorded by the bench while dealing with the appeal of the assessee in shall apply to 725/JPR/2023 and ITA no. 727/JPR/2023.

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →