Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

03-09-2019, Nanchand & Co, Section 69C, 271(1)(c), 132, Tribunal Pune

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 month 5 days ago #10751 by amit
Section - 69C, 271(1)(c), 132, 131(1)(b), 153A, 69B
Order Date - 03-09-2019
Favouring - Allowed for statistical purposes
Court - Tribunal Pune
Appellant - Nanchand & Co.
Respondent - ACIT
Justice - D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
Citation - 919Taxpundit72
Appeal No. - ITA Nos.2207 to 2212/PUN/2016
Asstt. Year - 1998-99 to 2002-03 & 2004-05

Order

PER : VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

The assessee in ITA Nos. 2207 to 2212/PUN/2016 has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 24-06-2016 common for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03 and 2004-05.

2. The brief facts of the case common for all the assessment years are : The assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading in dry fruits on wholesale and retail basis. A search and seizure action u s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was carried out in the case of Soni-Shah group on 29-07 2003 During the course of search cash Rs.40 lakhs was seized. The statement of Shri Nanchand Bhogilal Shah, partner of the assessee firm was recorded on 04-12-2003 u/s. 131(1)(b) of the Act. He admitted cash seized Rs.40 lakhs as undisclosed income of the group. In his statement he offered the entire cash for tax in the name of three group entities viz. Nanchand & Co., Swati Automobiles and Danendra Kumar & Co. spread over the period of six years starting from assessment year 1998-99. The details of cash disclosed in the name of group entities over the period of six assessment years is as under :

2.1 The assessee disclosed turnover along with gross profit for the impugned assessment years as under :

2.2 Thereafter, assessments for the impugned assessment years were framed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made additions in the impugned assessment years on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C, unexplained investments u/s. 69B and GP additions on undisclosed sales.

2.3 Aggrieved against the assessment orders for the respective assessment years, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) enhanced the additions. Hence, the present appeals by the assessee.

3. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the appeals of assessee for adjudication in seriatim of assessment years.

ITA No. 2207/PUN/2016, (A.Y. 1998-99)

4. The assessee has raised following grounds assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) :

“1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & Scheme of the Act it be held that, the addition of Rs.4,55,426/- on account of gross profit on unrecorded sales is not in accordance with the provisions of the law and scheme of the Act. The addition made by the AO and that enhanced by the first appellate authority be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

2. Without prejudice to above ground, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & Scheme of the Act, it be held that the cash found at the premises of the appellant was out of the profits of the unaccounted business activities of the appellant firm and the amount declared out of the cash found includes the profits earned out of the unaccounted business activities. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

3. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, it be held that the addition of Rs.23,221/- on account of unaccounted expenditure is unwarranted, unjust and against the provisions and scheme of the Act. The said addition be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.

4. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, it be held that the amount of Rs.23,221/- on account of unaccounted expenditure has already been taxed in the hands of Mr.Nandchand Shah for A.Y.2001-02 and therefore no separate
addition should be made in the hands of the appellant. The addition be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect

5. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, it be held that the addition of Rs.3,84,207/- on account of unaccounted initial investment is unwarranted, unjust and against the provisions and scheme of the Act. The addition so made be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.

6. Without prejudice to the grounds raised above, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of law and scheme of the Act, it be held that the appellant is allowed to claim telescopic effect of the additions made and the appellant be granted consequential relief in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.

7. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Nanchand & Co. vs. ACIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.353 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT Read More
CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN Read More
PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI  Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar