GANESHLAL RAMESHWARDAS AGRAWA,BHARAT NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.1244/PUN/2023 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2010-11
Ganeshlal Rameshwardas Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, Near Shivaji Statue, Ward-1, Jalna Jalna 431 203 Maharashtra vs. PAN : ABCPA9034F (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri Rajendra Agiwal For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande
Date of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1041232161(1), dated 22.03.2022, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action adding the alleged on-money payment of Rs.3,01,000/- going by the some incriminating material found/seized during the course of search carried out in case of the
2 ITA.No.1244/PUN/2023 Ganeshlal Rameshwardas Agrawal
vendor concerned. Ms. Deshpande vehemently argued that the vendor herein
Mr. Rajesh Bhagwandas Soni, Jalna had got recorded his search statement
admitting receipt of the on-money from assessee’s side.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands
herein and find no merit in the impugned addition since the same has been
made only on the basis of the vendor’s alleged search statement which hardly
carries any significance as per the CBDT’s landmark Circular
F.No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2023. It is further coupled with the fact that the
learned lower authorities have also not made available the vendor’s search
statement to the assessee nor could they produce him for the purpose of cross
examination in the course of assessment. Be that as it may, once it is clear
that the impugned addition is not in consonance of the CBDT Circular, it
deserves to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 26th March, 2024 Satish
3 ITA.No.1244/PUN/2023 Ganeshlal Rameshwardas Agrawal
Copy to :
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
/ /By Order //
// True copy //
/Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
