ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR V. HARISH KUMAR VIG, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 22/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Jamshedpur against Harish Kumar Vig concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision which had deleted two significant additions made by the Assessing Officer: one related to ₹ 33,75,000 for land purchase and another of ₹ 2,54,33,481 based on ITS data. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) had deleted these additions without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond. However, the tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not identified the transactions or provided relevant bank statements, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716527 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

"P a g e 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 22/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Jamshedpur. Vs. Harish Kumar Vig, 12 No. Mills and Godown Area,Tatanagar Burmamines, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831002. PAN No. AAWPV 5557 B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Assessee represented by Shri S.K. Jha A.R. Date of hearing 22/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/11251/2014-15 dated 30/11/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr. DR is represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri S.K. Jha, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that there are two additions which were made by the Assessing Officer, one representing an amount of ₹ 33,75,000/- representing the source for investment in the purchase of a land. The second was in regard to information from the ITS Data wherein the Assessing Officer has made the addition of ₹ 2,54,33,481/-. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the additions without granting an opportunity to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 22/Ran/2024 ACIT Vs Harish Kumar Vig P a g e 2 | 3 Assessing Officer to respond. It is a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that all the information which were provided before the ld. CIT(A) were given to the Assessing Officer for his rebuttal. It was a further submission that a perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page 14 would clearly shows that the Assessing Officer had specifically submitted that the addition of ₹ 2,54,33,481/- was on the basis of the ITS Data on the ITBA and when the Assessing Officer was asked to identify the transactions and provide the copy of the relevant bank statements. The Assessing Officer failed to identify the transactions event. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) has given all the data before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has failed to support his order. It was a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page-6 shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact that the amount of ₹ 33,75,000/- for the purchase of the land was explained by the withdrawals from the capital account with S.P. Mineral through banking channels and the payment for the purchase of the land was also made through banking channels. These facts have not been controverted by the Assessing Officer. Further in respect of the addition of ₹ 2,54,33,481/-, it is noticed that the assessee has been continuously saying that the transactions does not belong to him and the Assessing Officer was specifically asked to identify the transactions which has also not done by him which is evident from page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, as the revenue has Printed from counselvise.com ITA 22/Ran/2024 ACIT Vs Harish Kumar Vig P a g e 3 | 3 not been able to dislodge any of the findings of facts as arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) when he has deleted both the additions, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld. 6. In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order announced in open court on 22nd August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 22/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "