CIT v. First Point Finance Ltd.

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ceed to reopen their individual assessment in\naccordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of\nassessee company\"\nFurther we may submit that thepresent case is also directly covered by the\ndecision of CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd 286 ITR 477 (Raj.) by holding\nthat It is not denied that all the share holders/share applicants are genuinely\nexisting persons. It is also not denied that each of them is an income tax\nassessee and the copies of the return of their income were also placed before\nthe AO by the assessee which facts is also not denied . In these circumstances,\nno material…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…322 ITR 396 (Del).\ne) H.R. Mehta V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashwani Gupta,\n387 ITR 561\nf) KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX\n[1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC)\n\na) CIT Vs. First Point Finance Ltd. (2006) 206 CTR (Raj) 626 : (2006) 286 ITR 477\n(Raj HC).\nIncome-Cash credit Share application money-Tribunal found that the investors are\ngenuinely existing persons and they have filed confirmations in respect of investments made by\nthem and their statements were also recorded-Amount of share capital/share application money\ncould not be treated as unexplained cash credits and no addition…

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…tries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 22 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT No. 1433 of 2014 dated 05.07.2017) and coordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Moraj Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.708 & 709/Mum/2019 dated 08-12-2020) (APB - ) Case Laws relied upon: 1. 283 ITR 377 (Raj.) Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. ACIT Held: The principle relating to burden of proof concerning the assessee is that where the matter concerns the money receipts by way of share application from investors through banking channel, the assessee has to prove existence of person in whose name share application is received. Once the existence of inv…

GOLDENDUNES HOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

…see company and share applicants. The statements recorded during the survey had no evidentiary value without any supporting documents or evidence. The tribunal was justified in deleting the addition under section 68…” 2. Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT [2006] 283 ITR 377 (Rajasthan) "The principle relating to burden of proof concerning the assessee is that where the matter concerns the money receipts by way of share application from investors through banking channel, the assessee has to prove existence of person in whose name share application is received. Once the existence of shareholder is proved, it is no fur…

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

…settled that it is only initial onus which lay upon the assessee and once, it is discharged the same shifts to the AO. In other words, the assessee is not required to prove the source of the credits till the hilt. Kindly refer CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd 286 ITR 477 (Raj.) (DPB- 31- 35), holding that once the initial burden has been discharged in respect of the identity of investors, about their existence, and the confirmation from such investors has been obtained, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise not only that the invested amount did not belong to the creditors but further it has to prove…

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…is discharged, it shifts to the ld. AO to rebut/disprove the same for making a valid addition u/s 68. Kindly refer CIT v/s Shree Barkha Synthetics (2003) 182 CTR 175 (Raj), Shanker Industries v/s CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) and First Point Finance Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 477 (Raj). 1.2.1 Identity Established: In the present case the facts are not denied that the assesse had alreadysubmitted Affidavits (duly notarized and attested) of Mr. Sukhvinder Singh and theother threecreditors as also their identity proof (Aadhar Card, Voter ID etc.)and copies of jamabandi(PB 1-20) which is the best evidence to prove the identi…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND YADAV,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, NEEMKATHANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 173/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/o-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIUPY 2977 J Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

…to have been received. He relied on the following decisions: (i) Nek Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 274 ITR 575 20 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) (ii) of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 (iii) 283 ITR 377 (Raj.) Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. ACIT (iv) 159 ITR 78 (SC) Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd 11. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record we noticed that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,08,750…

SMT. MEERA DEVI, ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

…on the revenue. The assessee need not to prove the source of source of the loan transaction. Reliance is also being placed on the following judgments in this regard :- S.No. Particulars Citation Hon’ble Court / Tribunal CIT Vs. First Point Finance Raj. High 1 286 ITR 477 Ltd. Court ACIT Vs. Rajasthan ITAT, Jaipur 2 XLI Tax World 153 Asbestos Cement Co. Bench For the reasons stated above, it is humbly requested that the impugned addition made by the ld. A.O., being illegal and unjustified, may kindly be deleted. 10. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. We have heard…

M/S BALAJI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…not at all appropriately evaluated and considered the specific and peculiar facts of the case. Before ld. CIT(A), following binding judicial precedents of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench were cited: CIT vs. First Point Finance Ltd. 286 ITR 477 (Raj), CIT vs. Barkha Synthetics 182 CTR 175 (Raj), Labhchand Bohra vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj), Kanhialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (Raj), Premlata Kedia vs. DCIT 22 TW 481 (JPR), Nirmal Kumar Dugar 31 TW-112 (JP),Narayan Singh vs.ITO 31 TW 191 (JP) and Mohan Sukhani vs. ITO 31 TW 61 (JP). The ld CIT(A) has neither followed the above jud…

SHRI ARPIT MAMODIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

…mary onus which lay upon him is discharged and is shifted on the revenue. The assessee need not to prove the source ofsourceoftheloantransaction.Reliance is also being placed on the following judgments in this regard :- 1. Ld. CIT vs First Point Finance Ltd, 286 ITR 477 (Raj.) 2. ACIT vs sRajasthan Asbestos Cement Co. XLI TW 153 ITAT, Jaipur As submitted above, it is humbly requested that the impugned addition sustained by theId. CIT Appeal is, being illegal and unjustified, may kindly be deleted” 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 2.4 The Bench has heard the rival…