Kanhaialal Jangid v. ACIT

Elcon Drugs & Formulation Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT(OSD), Circle-4, Jaipur

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

…o. 1339/JP/20010] Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Assessee Copmany for AY 2008- 2 09.[ITA No. 995/JP/2013] Copy of order of High Court of Rajasthan , in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax.[2008] 217 CTR 354(RAJ.), [IT Appeal No. 85 of 2001] 3 Copy of order of High Court of Rajasthan , in the case of Commissioner of Income - tax, Ajmer 4 vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 203(Rajasthan) Copy of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 96/15 in the case of Principal Commisioner of Income 5 Tax, Udaipur vs. M/S. Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd. Copy of order of H…

Noble Tradelink Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Ward 1(5), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

…lloys Pvt. Ltd. vs ITA No. 3302/Mum/2019 order dated 24-01-2022 (Mum. Trib) 5. Pr.CIT, Udaipur vs Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA No. 96/15 order dated 03-05-2016 (Raj-HC) 6. Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj-HC) 7 Kanhaialal Jangid vs ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (Raj-HC) 8. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) In the end, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 80 lacs should be deleted. 4.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. To this effect, the ld. DR relied on following case laws. 1.Pr. CIT vs…

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

…75 (SC) ii. R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), iii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). 13 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO iv. Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) v. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), (217 CTR 354) vi. Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 vii. CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh) viii. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd., (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24/2014) decided on 28.09.2016 (Raj.) ix. Muralidhar Lahoriaml v/s CIT 280 ITR 512(Guj.) With regard to reopening of the case, the ld. AR has submitted that the re…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Mahesh Mordia, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…the Financial Institutions, can be considered to have capacity to provide loan to any person at least to the extent of Rs. 2.08 crore. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaiala Jangid Vs ACIY (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj). As per the ld AR, it was not a case of the A.O. that the loan creditor has deposited cash in his bank account before issuing of cheque. There was credit in his bank account through transfer entries and only through banking transaction. The bank statement was also procured by the A.O. 8…

M/S Shubham Prime Builders Ppvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

…e parties, ITR and their bank statements. He further filed the details of shares allotted to them in the next year against the amount received. The ld AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid Vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and Aravali Trading Co. Vs ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj). 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has argued that since the original assessment was completed U/s 143(1) of the Act in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaweri, the same cannot 5 ITA 606 & 607/JP/2018_ Shubham Prime Builders P. Ltd. Vs DCIT be treated a…

M/S Shubham Prime Builders Ppvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

…e parties, ITR and their bank statements. He further filed the details of shares allotted to them in the next year against the amount received. The ld AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid Vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and Aravali Trading Co. Vs ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj). 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has argued that since the original assessment was completed U/s 143(1) of the Act in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaweri, the same cannot 5 ITA 606 & 607/JP/2018_ Shubham Prime Builders P. Ltd. Vs DCIT be treated a…

Shri Jaipal Singh Mahalawat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Transaction

…ed 10.02.2017, ITAT Chandigarh 5. Reliance was also placed by the ld AR on the judicial pronouncements laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aravali trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) and Kanhailal Jangid Vs ACIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj) and it was contended that the principles laid down in these judicial pronouncements are fully applicable to the present case. The fact that the explanation furnished by the aforementioned six creditors about the sources wherefrom they acquired the money was not acceptable by the revenue could not provide necessary nexus for drawing infe…

Smt. Nilam Jain, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

In the result, we set-aside the matter to the

…on the following decisions:- • CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) • CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) • CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) • Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) • Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There are two transactions of unsecured loan taken by the assessee from her two close relatives, her sister and sister-in-…

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

…ecedents 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 judgements nor has distinguished the same and the decisions relied upon by the ld CIT(A) are distinguishable. It was finally submitted the assessee…

Jagdish Prasad Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.

…in the bank account. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti, 44 tamann.com 459 (Guj.) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid, 217 CTR 354 (Raj.). 5.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that when the assessee has accepted the fact that the agricultural land cannot be sold to the alleged purchaser, therefore, the agreement produced by the assessee is an afterthought manipulation of evidence. He has further contended that even the purchaser has admitted in his statement…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

…ney to assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained. Also refer Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), ( 217 CTR 354) held Income –cash credit –Burden of proof – Assessee having filed confirmation from the creditor and having produced the creditor before AO where the creditor affirmed advancement of loan to assessee, no addition under s. 68 could be made in the hands of assessee on the ground that the creditor could not satisfactorily explain the source of loan…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhiwadi vs. Shri Satish Kumar, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

…an 104 (Del.) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) 4. CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (Raj.) (HC) 5. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) 6. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) (HC) 7. Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.) (HC) In view of above, the addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the ground of the department be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. We have also gone through…

Bimal Hansaria, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…ts were received by cheques. He submitted a chart whereby details regarding each and every depositor has been provided. He also relied on the following case laws: (i) Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 (ii) Kanhaiya Lal Jangid Vs CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj). (iii) Asstt.CIT Vs. Swami Complex (P) Ltd. (2007) 111 TTJ (JP) 531. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee has submitted correct PAN of all the depositors. He has also submitted confirmation from all these depositors. In the case of M…

Rajesh Kumar Todwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…n and accepted that the money deposited in the bank account of the assessee had been advanced by it. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal ITA 543/JP/2016_ 4 Rajesh Kumar Todwal Vs ITO Jangid Vs ACIT 217 CTR 354 and CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh (2001)252 ITR 528. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee is an individual and partner in M/s M.K. Enterprises and M/s Kailash Yadav & Company. The source of cash deposited in the bank account is o…

Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

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

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

…’’ Regarding these disallowances, it is a common belief that, in absence of proper records, the possibility of involvement of personal usage in such type of expenses cannot be ruled out. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Kanhiya Lal Jangid (217 CTR 354) also approved the concept of adhoc disallowance on lump sum basis, if the relevant details are not found available to support of the expenses claimed by the assessee. Consequently, Ground No. 3 of appeal is dismissed.’’ 9 Shri Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee…

Laxmi Narayan Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

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

…cilities. Regarding these additions, it is a common belief that, in absence of proper records, the possibility of involvement of personal usage in such type of expense cannot be ruled out. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Kanhailal Jangid (217 CTR 354) also approved the concept of adhoc addition on lump sum basis, if the relevant details are not found available to support of the expenses claimed by the assessee. In view of the same, I find the disallowances which is only 20% of these expenses as justified. Consequently, Ground No. 3 of appeal is dismissed.’’ 9 Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Himmatr…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

…o assessee was not a matter which the assessee could be required to establish and that would amount to calling upon him to establish the source of source. Hence addition cannot be sustained. 18.2 Also refer Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), ( 217 CTR 354) held Income –cash credit –Burden of proof – Assessee having filed confirmation from the creditor and having produced the creditor before AO where the creditor affirmed advancement of loan to assessee, no addition under s. 68 could be made in the hands of assessee on the ground that the creditor could not satisfactorily explain the source of loan…