DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR V. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, JAMSHEDPUR

ITSSA 13/RAN/2021

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of Rs.2.34 crores to the income of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal for the assessment year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following a search operation under the Bhalotia group of cases. The assessee had offered the amount as additional income during the assessment proceedings, which was contested in the appeal. The CIT(A) deleted the addition citing lack of corroborative evidence, a decision which the revenue challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on another addition of Rs.10,80,313, which was found to be covered by a revised return disclosing additional income of Rs.55,00,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716922 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2021
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj), Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT DATTA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH PODDAR
• Keywords: Revised return; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur (Appellant) Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, G 2/1, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.ABOPA 9561 (cross objector) Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue CIT(A)-Patna-3, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur Vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, G 2/1, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.ABOPA 9561 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 (in IT(ss)A No.13/Ran/2021) Assessment year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, G 2/1, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur .ABOPA 9561 D .. (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20/08/2025 O R D E R an appeal filed by the revenue against the ord dated in Appeal No.CIT(A)Patna-3/10074/2016 P a g e 1 | 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, G 2/1, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, ( Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Office Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur DR against the order of the ld 3/10074/2016-17, for the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 P a g e 2 | 6 assessment year 2014-15. The cross objection is filed by the assessee in revenue’s appeal in IT(ss) A No.13/Ran/2021 for the assessment year 2014- 15. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the cross objection filed by the assessee is only supportive to the order of the ld CIT(A). 4. Ld CIT DR submitted that there was a search in the Bhalotia group of case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed a submission, wherein, the assessee had offered an amount of Rs.2.34 crores to be treated as additional income for the assessment year 2014-15. It was the submission that consequently, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.2.34 crores in the assessment. It was the submission that in the course of appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the said addition of Rs.2.34 crores and ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj) as also the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Benches in the case of Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) held that the addition cannot be made on the basis of a statement of submission of the assessee until and unless there is any Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 P a g e 3 | 6 corroborative evidence for the same. It was the submission that the assessee having offered the said income in the course of search, the addition is liable to be upheld. It was the prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 5. In reply, ld AR submitted that in this group of cases, there was declaration of nearly Rs.10 crores of which, Rs.2.34 crores has been made in the hands of the assessee, Rs.6 crores in the case of company and balance in other family members of the group. It was the submission that the statement had been recorded under compulsion and the assessee had given declaration under compulsion. It was the submission that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any undisclosed income which was required to be disclosed. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order most specifically at page 3 shows that the Assessing Officer has extracted the statement given by the assessee in the form of statement. A perusal of the said statement shows that the assessee has clearly mentioned thereon that “there is no supporting document or any sort of paper available to suggest any income to this extent over and above the returned income disclosed. However, to have peace of mind and to avoid any litigation with the Income Tax Department, I have surrendered Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 P a g e 4 | 6 this day this additional income of Rs.2,34,00,000/- on which I shall be making payment of taxes in instalment before 31st March, 2016.” Further, on perusal of the assessment order shows that other than this statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not used any other evidences for making the addition. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) also shows that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of the said fact that there is no evidence of income being brought to tax on the basis of any seized documents or any evidence to suggest such income. The addition has been made only on the basis of the statement made by the assessee. The facts in the present case clearly shows that for the purpose of bringing any group income to tax, one of the primary requirement is the filing of revised return. Just because, the assessee makes a statement, the income cannot be brought to tax unless and until the Assessing Officer finds some evidences to show that the assessee has earned such income, which has not been disclosed in its return. The facts clearly shows that no such return has also been filed by the assessee disclosing the additional income of Rs.2.34 crores. There is only one letter addressed to the Assessing Officer. The addition has also been made without reference to any incriminating material or otherwise to show that the assessee has earned such income during the impugned assessment year. This being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue insofar as the revenue Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 P a g e 5 | 6 has been unable to dislodge any of the findings of facts as arrived at by the ld CIT(A). 7. It was further submitted by ld CIT DR that the estimated addition of Rs.10,80,313/- has also been made by the AO in the course of assessment. It was the submission that said estimation was in respect of undisclosed profit. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the same on the ground that the assessee has filed revised return disclosing the additional income of Rs.55,00,000/- and this was covered the estimated income, which has been added as Rs.10,80,313/-. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue be reversed. 8. In reply, ld AR submitted that the additional income of Rs.55,00,000/- has been disclosed in the revised return only to cover up of deficiency and this amount of Rs.10,80,313/- would get telescoped the said disclosure. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that the assessee has disclosed Rs.55,00,000/- in its return filed post search proceedings and the addition of Rs.10,80,313/- representing the 1% commission has also got telescoped of the said disclosure of Rs.55,00,000/-. This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld CIT(A) to interfere. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.13/RAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 C.O. No.13/Ran/2021 P a g e 6 | 6 11. As the cross objection is supportive to the order of the ld CIT(A) and we have confirmed the order of the ld CIT(A), the cross objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 20/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Office 2. The Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, G 2/1, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A)-Patna-3 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "