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.

09-04-2019, Hans Raj Sharma, Section 147, 2(14), Tribunal Jaipur

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 week 2 days ago #9111 by amit
Section - 147, 2(14), 151, 148, 292BB
Order Date - 09-04-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Jaipur
Appellant - ITO
Respondent - Hans Raj Sharma
Justice - RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & VIJAY PAL RAO, JM
Citation - 419Taxpundit146
Appeal No. - ITA No. 504/JP/2016
Asstt. Year - 2007-08

Order

PER : R.C. SHARMA, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I Jaipur dated 15/02/2016 for the A.Y. 2007-07 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the department wherein the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief in respect of addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained bank deposits on the basis of additional evidences, which were never submitted before the A.O. despite providing various opportunities by A.O.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief in respect of addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained bank deposits on the basis of additional evidences which were admitted without satisfying the conditions mentioned in Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962.”

3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an agriculturist. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold agricultural land jointly owned by four brothers. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had sold agricultural land which was valued by the Sub-Registrar at an amount higher than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The A.O. issued notice U/s 148 and in reply to the same, the assessee filed return declaring income from agriculture and bank interest. Since as per the opinion of the assessee, the said agricultural land was not a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, hence no transaction of sale of agricultural land was shown in the return filed in pursuance to the notice U/s 148 of the Act.

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the assessee had sold agriculture land to a party named Megha Colonisers and received a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/ - (1/4th Share) on account of advance against such land. The AO made the addition of the said amount stating that the appellant has been unable to explain the source of said credit and thus considering the same as unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee.

4. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted by the addition after observing as under:

“(iii) I have duly considered the above contention of the appellant and found merit in it. It is evident from the sale deed dated 19.05.2007, executed by the appellant along with his three brothe s in favour of M/s Megha Colonisers that cheque No. 968599 dated 14.03.2007 amounting to Rs. 55 Lac was provided by M/s Megha Colonizers to the appellant and the same was credited into the Bank of Baroda bank account of the appellant on 15.03.2007. Further, the appellant has also filed a confirmation from M/s Megha Colonisers in this regard. Therefore, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, it is held that there was no justification for making the addition of Rs. 55 lac and thus the same cannot be sustained, hence deleted.”

5. Now the revenue is in further appeal before the ITAT.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after calling a remand report from the A.O. wherein the ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee has filed all the relevant documents to justify its case like confirmation from the purchaser, bank statement of purchaser highlighting the said transaction and copy of sale deed of the said land. We found that after calling a remand report and the rejoinder from the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has recorded a detailed finding to the effect that the sale deed dated 19/5/2007 was executed by the assessee alongwith his three brothers in favour of M/s Megha colonizers and payment was received through cheuqe No. 9685599 dated 14/3/2007 amount to Rs. 55.00 lacs. This amount was credited in the bank account of the assessee maintaining in Bank of Baroda on 15/3/2007. The confirmation from M/s Megha colonizers was also filed, which is placed on record. We do not find any contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules in so far as the ld. CIT(A) has already given opportunity to the A.O. by calling a remand report and after seeing all the documents filed before him to the A.O. for his remand report and after considering the same, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 55.00 lacs. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of ITO vs. Hans Raj Sharma

Unable to display Google Map.




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

Time to create page: 0.102 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

PCIT vs. OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA & ANR.

PCIT vs. OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA & ANR.

PCIT vs. OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA & ANR. Read More
Kingfisher Capital CLO Ltd. vs. CIT

Kingfisher Capital CLO Ltd. vs. CIT

Kingfisher Capital CLO Ltd. vs. CIT Read More
Plymex Timber Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs ITO

Plymex Timber Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs ITO

Plymex Timber Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs ITO Read More
NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCC) vs. DCIT

NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCC) vs. DCIT

NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCC) vs. DCIT 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

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!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar