Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 827/JP/2019
ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 29-03-2019 for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,368/- made by Ld.AO by holding the same to be undisclosed income from interest arbitrarily without considering the submissions made and evidences adduced, thus the addition of Rs. 41,368/- so confirmed deserves to be deleted.
2 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, Jaipur 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the income of from interest of Rs. 8,632/- was duly declared by assessee in his return of income and the addition of Rs. 41,368/- over and above such income has been made by the Ld. AO merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Thus, the same deserves to be • deleted.
1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the addition made by the Ld. AO was based on a diary which belong to a third party and had no connection whatsoever with the assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 41,368/- made the Ld. AO deserves to be deleted.
1.3 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that, despite being requested, the Ld. AO failed to provide an opportunity of cross-examination of the persons who were alleged to have received advances from the assessee. That being so, the action of the Ld. AO in making the addition is illegal and therefore, deserves to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 61,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property, without considering the fact that no such investment was made by the assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 61,000/- deserves to be deleted.
2.1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the agreement, on the basis of which allegation of investment in property has been made, had never resulted into execution of registered sale deed. Until and unless a registered sale deed is executed, there can be no transfer of property and hence, no question of investment arises. Thus, the addition of Rs. 61,000/- made by the Ld. AO made on mere estimate basis deserves to be deleted.
Without prejudice to Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 & 2.1 and in the alternative:
3 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, Jaipur
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 61,000/- without considering the fact that the addition of Rs. 61,000/- has been made merely on estimate basis, whereas, without admitting and presuming just for the sake of arguments, the assessee had sufficient liquid funds as well as past savings available with him to make the investment of Rs. 5,11,000/-. Thus, the addition of Rs. 61,000/- deserves to be deleted.
That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference by both the parties in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.
Apropos assessee’s grounds of appeal, the ld.AR of the assessee has stated that the assessee has filed a petition under ‘’Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme -2020 to settle the aforesaid grievance before the competent authority.
The ld.AR of the assessee during the course of hearing further submitted that fresh Form No. 5 in the case of the assessee is also issued by the ld. PCIT. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the present appeal filed by the assessee needs to be withdrawn.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has not objected to this arguments.
4 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, Jaipur 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant records before us, we found that since the assessee has already opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had placed on record Form No. 5. Therefore, considering the said action of assessee, the present appeal is dismissed as no cause of action has been left to maintain the present appeal.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2022 ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/04/2022 *Ganesh Kr.