Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

407 ITR 254High Court2018#2198 most cited

What is Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority cannot sustain or reclassify an addition made by the Assessing Officer under a specific section of the Income Tax Act by invoking a different section, especially if the alternative section was not the original subject matter of the dispute.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT · Sarika Jain · Section 68 · Section 69A · Income Tax Act 1961 · addition under one section · upholding addition under another section · appellate powers · scope of ITAT · reclassification of income

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 64

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69ASection 69Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 115BBESection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 108section 10basection 10b(8)section 80ia(8)cost plus methodinterest on outstanding receivablesinterest u/s 234csection 80a(5)penalty proceedings initiatedsection 80ia(4)deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

Mr.Girish V Yalakkishettar, Dharwad vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 355/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.)] and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Sarika Jain v. 11 ITA Nos.354-355/Bang/2019 Shri Girish V.Yalakkishettar. CIT (407 ITR 254). The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the Tribunal is not competent to sustain the addition u/s 69A of the Act after deleting the said addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stands vitiated in law. Being so, the amount found credited in the bank account of the assessee cann…

Mr. Girish V Yalakkishettar, Dahrwad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Hubli

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 354/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.)] and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Sarika Jain v. 11 ITA Nos.354-355/Bang/2019 Shri Girish V.Yalakkishettar. CIT (407 ITR 254). The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the Tribunal is not competent to sustain the addition u/s 69A of the Act after deleting the said addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stands vitiated in law. Being so, the amount found credited in the bank account of the assessee cann…

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…blindly apply provisions, which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, w…

Rita Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2929/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion u/s.68 can be made because the amount was credited in the bank account 7 I.T.A. No.2927, 2928 & 2929/DEL/2018 of the assessee. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254 (All) and other decisions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 -…

Anchal Goel, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2928/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion u/s.68 can be made because the amount was credited in the bank account 7 I.T.A. No.2927, 2928 & 2929/DEL/2018 of the assessee. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254 (All) and other decisions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 -…

Madhu Goel, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2927/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar and Shri VipinFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion u/s.68 can be made because the amount was credited in the bank account 7 I.T.A. No.2927, 2928 & 2929/DEL/2018 of the assessee. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254 (All) and other decisions of the Tribunal and High Court which are as under:- — Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT - 407 ITR 254 (ALL) — Vijay Kumar V ITO -ITA 2483/2015-Order dt. 27.11.18 (DEL-F) — Inder Singh V ITO -ITA 1931/2016 -order dt. 5.12.18 (DEL-B) — SMT. SHANTA DEVI V CIT (1987) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) - Rameshbhai Somebhai Patel V ITO 1864/Ahd/2014 -…

Manish Agarwal HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 30(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7443/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ly apply provisions, which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Co…

Kailash Prasad Agarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7310/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ly apply provisions, which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Co…

Nitin Agarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7309/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ly apply provisions, which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Co…

Kusum Lata Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 40(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3054/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2009-10 MRS. KUSUM LATA MITTAL, VS. ITO, WARD 40(4) C-2/42A, LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI DELHI – 110 035 (PAN: AVGPM0912) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Department by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. O R D E R This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 28.2.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justifie…

Inder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1931/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantay: 2010-11 Inder Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(3), S/O Sh. Ram Singh, New Delhi 94, Goyala Khurd, Delhi (Pan: Bcrps3678G) Bhhpk5632D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 80C

…blindly apply provisions, which can be fatal to the interest of Revenue. However as a Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, w…

Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall, Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2483/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall Vs. Ito C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward-2 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Faridabad. Delhi. Bhhpk5632D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

…nterest of Revenue. However as a ITA No. 2483/Del/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Prop. Tribunal, we are not competent to make addition u/s 69A of the Act, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT reported in 407 ITR 254. Hon’ble High Court observed as under. “18. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under section 69A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law.” Respectfully following the above observation by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, w…

M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

…017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 20/86 Sarika Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bareilly, [2017]84 Taxmann.com 64 wherein dealing with the case of a partner who introduced a Capital of `12,20,000/- in the Partnership Firm and explained that Capital contribution to have been received by her as ‘Gifts’ and the donors of such ‘Gifts’ were also produced before the Assessing Authority and even though the Assessing Officer held that the ‘Gifts’ were…