DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH WADHVANI, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 156/IND/2020Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 January 2022AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) after examining the paper book and the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's arguments did not point out any specific ambiguity in the lower appellate authority's decision.

What were the facts?

A search action was conducted on the assessee's premises, leading to the discovery of various documents. The Assessing Officer made several additions to the assessee's income, including unexplained foreign expenditure, bogus sundry creditors, lower profit rate, and unexplained capital.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained foreign expenditure, bogus sundry creditors, lower profit rate, and unexplained capital were justified. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting these additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI MANISH BORAD

The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-175/2014-15, dated 21.01.2020 arising out of assessment order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer [DCIT vs. Shri Prakash Wadhvani] AY 2012-13 - 2 - (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14.

2.

The ground of appeal raised by Revenue reads as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,88,700/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained foreign expenditure.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A] erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,74,071/- made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Income tax Act,1961 on account of bogus sundry creditors.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,05,189/- made by the assessing officer on account of lower rate of profit adopted by the assessee.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,52,549/- made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained capital.”

3.

The facts of the case are that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at various premises of the concerns / business associates of Sagar Group on 20.10.2011. The assessee is an individual and having income from business of civil contractor and house property. During the course of search at office premises at E-2/134, Arera colony, Bhopal various documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized as per annexure LPS-3 pages 42 to 120, 142-180 and LPS-A-1/11-21 and 23 of the panchnama dated 22.10.2011. Regular return of income was filed on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 19,86,030/on 15.10.2013. During the course of assessment proceedings, various additions to the income of the assessee were made. The details of additions made by the AO are as under: - [DCIT vs. Shri Prakash Wadhvani] AY 2012-13 - 3 -

Income shown in the return Rs. 19,36,030/-

Add: On account of foreign trip as discussed Rs. 4,88,700/- in para no 9.4

On account of bogus sundry creditor as Rs. 24,74,071/- discussed in para no 10.5

On account of net profit as discussed in Rs. 8,05,189/- para no 1 1 .6

On account of opening capital of Rs. Rs. 1,49,52,549/- 1,36,21,91 1/- and addition in capital account of Rs. 13,30,6387-as discussed in para 12.4

Total income assessed Rs. 2,06,56,539/-

4.

Thereafter, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the learned CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Now, the Revenue has preferred appeal before us.

6.

We have gone through the impugned order and detailed paper book filed by the assessee and heard both the parties. In this case, certain details were filed by the assessee in support of his contention and learned CIT(A) sought remand report on each and every addition made by the learned AO and a detailed paper book containing pages 413 have been filed. A certificate issued by the counsel certifying that all the details were before the AO and CIT(A). Learned DR could not point out any specific ambiguity in the order of the learned CIT(A). After examining the paper [DCIT vs. Shri Prakash Wadhvani] AY 2012-13 - 4 - book and going through the CIT(A)’s order, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2022

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/01/2022 S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

Assisstant Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →