HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 624/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 December 2024AY 2014-1577 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- (related to AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, but the principle applies to the Rs. 55,00,000/- issue in AY 2012-13 as well) was purely based on the assessee's statement recorded during the search, which the assessee had subsequently retracted. The Tribunal noted that no supporting evidence or documents were found by the search team to substantiate the unaccounted investment. Following the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no addition can be made merely on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The Court's decision emphasized that an admission by the assessee cannot be conclusive evidence in the absence of supporting material. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. As the appeal was decided on merits, other technical grounds became educative. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Harish Jain, has filed four appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. These appeals challenge orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle, Kota, under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment orders were passed on December 22, 2019. The appeals stem from a search and seizure operation conducted on September 7, 2017, at premises belonging to 'Resonance Group, Kota', to which the assessee is associated. Following the search, the assessee's case was centralized to Central Circle-Kota. The ACIT made additions to the assessee's income, which were then confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee is challenging these additions and confirmations.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act are bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons, and thus liable for deletion? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed income from cash payment for the purchase of property at 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Kota by Smt. Prabha Jain, when the addition was based on surmises and conjectures? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming interest charged u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act? 4. Whether the impugned assessment order is a nullity for want of a DIN number as per CBDT instructions? 5. Whether the impugned assessment order is a nullity without jurisdiction as prior approval u/s 153D was not obtained or was mechanically obtained? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the additions were made without jurisdiction and on surmises. Specifically, the Rs. 55,00,000/- addition was based on a statement given under pressure and threat, which was later retracted, and lacked corroborative evidence. The assessee also contended that the assessment orders were nullities due to the absence of a DIN number and lack of proper approval under Section 153D. The assessee denied liability for interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 153D,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

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, JAIPUR BENCHES,” A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &, Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Hearing: 16/10/2024Pronounced: 26/12/2024

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

By way of separate four appeals filed by the assessee, the assessee challenges the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Udaipur-2 [for short CIT(A) ] passed on dates and assessment year as mentioned here in below. That order of the Id. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the separate orders passed by the ACIT, Central

Circle, Kota under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →