JAI GOPAL HARIKISHAN,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 808/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after verification of the facts. The penalty appeal was also restored for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a cash addition to the assessee firm's income, despite the assessee claiming the firm was dissolved and transactions were reflected in the hands of an individual. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition for lack of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits were correctly attributed to the assessee firm or an individual after its dissolution. The need for verification of documentary evidence to substantiate the assessee's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 807/Del/2024
ITA No. 808/Del/2024

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

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. First, we take up quantum appeal which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 08-02- 2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 26-03-2022. The Ld. AR argued that the impugned cash deposits were duly been reflected in proprietorship concern since the firm converted into proprietorship concern w.e.f. 01-04- 2012. The Ld. Sr. DR stated that these facts require verification by Ld. AO.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO made cash addition of Rs.105.51 Lacs in the hands of the assessee firm despite the submissions of the assessee that the firm was dissolved and these transactions were reflected in the hands of Shri Abhishek Khandelwal. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of documentary evidences. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

Considering the submissions of Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment after verification of aforesaid facts. The assessee is directed to substantiate its stand.

4.

ITA No,808/Del/2024 is consequential penalty which also stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration in the light of de novo assessment to framed by Ld. AO.

5.

Both the appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes as indicated upon conclusion of hearing. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23-04-2025 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →