SH. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 661/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.644/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered the excess stock as 'other income' and not as part of business income, and its source was not explained, it should be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 and taxed under Section 115BBE. The Assessing Officer's order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the facts?

During a survey, excess stock of Rs. 15,21,176/- was found. The assessee surrendered this amount as income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment treating it as business income taxed at normal rates.

What were the issues?

Whether the excess stock found during survey, surrendered as income, should be taxed as business income or unexplained income under Section 68, attracting Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 644/JP/2024

For Appellant: CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 08/08/2024Pronounced: 29/08/2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 644/JP/2024
ITA No. 661/JP/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

assessee and even the question no quoted in the order being 21 is also not correct income is disclosed based on the question no. 19.

All these aspects suggest the order of assessment has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and explanation offered with that of the record is not verified we confirm the view of the ld. PCIT. Based on these observation ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Ground no. 1 and 3 being general and no specific grievance or arguments raised same are not adjudicated and for ground no. 4 there is no submission or contention raised by the assessee and since the appeal of the dismissed.

In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in stands dismissed.

11.

The fact of the case in is similar to the and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 661/JP/2024 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds.

Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by both the parties. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in in the case of Shri Rajeev Jain for the Assessment Year 2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta in for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

A copy of this common order be placed in the respective file of each appellant records.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →