Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Kanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur

ITA 434/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9486 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEELA CHOPRA
• Keywords: Loose papers; Tax effect; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.434/LKW/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal 2601, Glendridge, Hiranandani Gardens, Powal, Mumbai v. The Dy. CIT Central Circle-1 Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAOPJ1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 18 12 2023 Date of pronouncement: 18 12 2023 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No. 434/Lkw/2019 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 30/04/2019 of learned CIT(A), Kanpur. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs.7,99,728.00 on the basis of the loose paper, without appreciating that the LP was undated and did not relate to the appellant.(The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.2,71,828.00). 2. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs.1,81,572.00 on the basis of the Loose paper, without considering the fact that as per the Loose paper itself, the amount of Rs.1,81,572.00 was Page 2 of 6 "unpaid" and therefore no addition could be made on the basis of the same. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.61,716.00). 3. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs.19,62,800.00 without appreciating the fact that the Loose papers contained only rough notings pertaining to a firm in which the appellant was one of the partners and the said fact was evident from the loose paper itself. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.6,67,156.00). 4. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of the Loose paper, when in fact all the entriescontained therein were from the regular bank account of the appellant. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.1,69,950.00). 5. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.1,48,43,808.00 made by the Ld.A.O. when in fact the contents of the loose paper were not related to the appellant at all and the amount of Rs.10 lakhs as mentioned on the loose paper was paid from the regular bank account of the persons to whom the transactions related. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.3,39,900.00). 6. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,10,00,000/- made by the Ld.A.O. without consideration, when in fact, it was evident from the Page 3 of 6 loose paper itself that the same contained rough notings of several persons of the group named therein and most of the entries pertaining to the appellant himself had been duly explained. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.47,58,600.00). 7. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.5,28,000.00 on the basis of the notings on the loose papers when in fact nothing contained in the LP evidenced any escaped or unaccounted income or expenditure. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.1,79,468.00). 8. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.7,75,000.00 on the basis of the notings on the loose papers when in fact the LP was never authored by the appellant, did not mention the appellant's name, did not contain the year to which it pertained and nothing contained in the LP evidenced any escaped or unaccounted income or expenditure of the appellant. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.2,63,423.00). 9. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.80,00,000.00 out of the total addition of Rs.96,52,000.00 on the basis loose papers which can at best be treated as 'dumb papers', containing no proper dates, containing several totaling mistakes and having several other anomalies. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.27,19,200.00). Page 4 of 6 10. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in confirming an addition of Rs.1,22,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.1,83,20,000/- made by the Id.A.O. on the basis of the Loose papers which were undated, rough notings, without any mention of any amount having been paid or received and which covered several other persons, and which, did not in any way, evidence any unaccounted income of the appellant. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.41,46,780.00). 11. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- made by the Id.A.O. on the basis of the Loose papers which were undated, rough notings, without any mention of any amount having been paid or received and which covered several other persons, and which, did not in any way evidence any unaccounted income of the appellant and which, at best, could be treated as 'dumb' papers. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.7,81,770.00). 12. That the Ld.CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- made by the Id.A.O. on the basis of the Loose papers which were not authored by the appellant, was undated, contained rough notings, and which, did not in any way evidence any unaccounted income of the appellant and which, at best, could be treated as 'dumb' papers. (The said ground has a Tax Effect of Rs.12,23,640.00). 13. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the additions made by the Ld.A.O. without appreciating the fact that several loose papers were Page 5 of 6 either dumb papers or not connected with the appellant at all. 14. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the additions made by the Ld.A.O. without considering the facts and submissions placed on record by the appellant. 15. The appellant begs for admission of such additional grounds, as may arise in the course of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Bench. (B). During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted copy of Form-5, for full and final settlement of tax arrears under Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (“VSVS” for short) for assessment year 2015-16 issued by the Principal CIT, Kanpur. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also furnished the copy of Form-3, certificate under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. It was submitted by him that since the assessee has opted for VSVS, the appeal filed by the assessee be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn on account of assessee opting for VSVS. (B.1) By way of abundant caution, we clarify that assessee will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for restoration of appeal if it is found that issues in dispute in present appeal are not settled under aforesaid VSVS. If assessee does approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the matter will be considered in accordance with law and relevant facts and circumstances. Page 6 of 6 (C). In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/12/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:18/12/2023 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar