×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.
Challenging the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)-III, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as “the learned CIT(A)’), the revenue preferred these appeals in the cases of MR. Madhur Mittal (Asstt. Year 2008-09), Ms Urvashi Mittal (Asstt. Year 2007-08 & 2008-09) and Ms Puja Mittal (Asstt. Year 2008-09) against the separate orders passed.
The assessee, Mr. Madhur Mittal has also filed a Cross Objection No.165/Del/2015 for the Asstt. Year 2008-09 challenging the additions confirmed by learned CIT(A).
2. Since all the three assesses belong to the Triveni group in respect of which the search operations were conducted on 28.9.2010 giving rise to the reassessments u/s 153A the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the grounds involved are more or less similar, we deem it just and convenient to dispose these of by way of this common order primarily with reference to the facts involved in ITA No.6126/Del/2014.
ITA Nos6126 /Del/ 2014 and CO No. 165 /Del/ 2015.
3. Original return of income was filed declaring a total income of Rs.2,82,271/- and subsequently, pursuant to the search that was conducted on 28.9.2010 in respect of Triveni group of which the assessee is also a part, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and the assessee filed the return of income on 10.12.2012 declaring as total income of Rs.7,26,490/-. Learned AO added a sum of Rs.4,90,800/- which the assessee had declared as agricultural income on the ground that the agricultural land was in the name of the deceased father of the assessee at Dholpur and the assessee had not filed any proof regarding the agricultural activity carried out on the said land. Learned AO further added a sum of Rs.5,01,90,000/-u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash found credited in Axis bank and the cash flow statement filed by the assessee was a self serving document without any proof in support of various cash receipts. Learned AO further observed that the assessee had also filed the cash flow statement in earlier years from which opening balance was coming on but no explanation was given in earlier years too.
4. Challenging the action of the learned AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and by way of the impugned order, learned CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Hence the revenue is before us in this appeal stating that the learned CIT(A) should not have relied upon the cash flow statement which is merely a self serving document and the source of cash deposit was not explained before the learned AO; that the learned CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the report received by the Officer of the Directorate of Income-tax (Systems) and which has checked the returns have been filed by the partners of contributing firm when merely filing of the income tax return is neither a conclusive proof of identity nor of creditworthiness nor of genuineness of the transaction.
5. It is the argument of the learned DR that the assessee did not file any proof regarding the agricultural activity carried out on the agricultural land or any sale bill of the agricultural produce and since the agricultural land stands in