SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SINGRAULI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.
For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58
55,09,367/- and claimed a deduction under section 57 of Rs. 51,52,446/-. The assessee had not filed any reply explaining the nature of the deduction under section of Rs. 51,52,446/- and hence the ld.
AO opined, that he could not ascertain the genuineness of the said deduction.
Consequently, he disallowed
