Shri Kailash Narayan Patidarr, Bhopal V. DCIT-Central, Bhopal

ITSSA 94/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3260 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 69; 11; 143(3); 54B; 50C; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T .( SS ) A . N o s. 9 4 & 1 1 3 /I n d / 2 0 2 0 ( A s se ss m e n t Y e a r s : 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 & 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 ) Sh . K a i la sh N a r a ya n Pa t id a r T u l si S a d a n , N e a r H a n u m a n M a n d ir , M is r o d , B h o p a l V s. D C I T - C e n t r a l A a ya k a r B h a w a n , H o sh a n g a b a d R o a d , B h o p a l D C I T , C e n tr a l - I I , A a ya k a r B h a w a n , B h o p a l Sh . K a i la sh N a r a ya n Pa t id a r T u l si S a d a n , N e a r H a n u m a n M a n d ir , M is r o d , B h o p a l PA N N o .A L B P P7 3 7 6 E (Appellant/Respondent) .. (Respondent/Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. Revenue by : None D a t e o f H e a r i ng 02.08.2022 D a t e o f P r o no un c e m e nt 10.08.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The cross appeals filed by the assessee & Revenue are directed against the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bhopal arising out of the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the DCIT (Central), Bhopal under Section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12. IT(SS)A No. 94/Ind/2020(A.Y. 2012-13):- 2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the Ld. A.R., and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. IT(SS)A Nos.94&113/Ind/2020 Shri Kailash Narayan Patidar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 & 2011-12 - 2 – 3. The challenge against the additions made on account of undisclosed investment of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 65,610/- of undisclosed investment in regard to bank deposits has not been pressed before us. In regard to the addition on account of undisclosed commission income of Rs. 21,00,000/- is arising out of the agreement for sale of land by the assessee with the purchaser. Since the argument has been cancelled, the impugned amount to Rs. 21,00,000/- has been returned to the said parties by the assessee. The receipt and/or acknowledgement issued by the said purchaser in the name of Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Late Shir S. K. Agrawal dated 20.06.2022 has been filed before us by way of an application for additional evidencing under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. In fact, after constant follow up by the assessee the said Shri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal has issued the said receipt/confirmation on 20.06.2022 which could not be submitted before the authorities below and hence, was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as the case made out by the assessee. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Department. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and being satisfied with the fact narrated by the assessee in the application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 we admit the said additional evidence. However, since the issue remained undecided on merit we are disposing of the appeal be remitting the issue to the file of the Ld. AO to decide the same IT(SS)A Nos.94&113/Ind/2020 Shri Kailash Narayan Patidar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 & 2011-12 - 3 – afresh and to pass a reasoned order upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering other additional evidences and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter in support of his case. Hence, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. IT(SS)A No. 113/Ind/2020(A.Y. 2011-12):- 6. We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. A.R., and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 7. The Revenue has challenged the following addition:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,00,000/- made by the A.O. u/s. 69 of the act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,32,81,367/- made by the A.O. by disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54B of the act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,65,737/- made by the A.O. as computed as per the provisions of 50C of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,01,000/- made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed capital contribution in the partnership firm M/s Vinayak Buildcon. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,54,400/- made by the A.O. u/s 69 of the act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the issue entailing granting of relief vis-à-vis amount of Rs. 4,55,600/- with respect to agriculture income added by the Assessing Officer for computation purpose.” 8. However, it appears that Page 137 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) speaks of quashing of the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 holding the same unsustainable in law. Therefore, the right course of action on behalf of the Revenue would have been to challenge the said order of quashing of the assessment order on maintainability ground instead of deletion of addition made by the CIT(A) which is wholly academic. Hence, IT(SS)A Nos.94&113/Ind/2020 Shri Kailash Narayan Patidar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 & 2011-12 - 4 – we do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Thus, the same is dismissed. 9. In the combined result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 10/08/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 10/08/2022 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Indore 1. Date of dictation 02.08.2022 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 02.08.2022 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .08.2022 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .08.2022 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .08.2022 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .08.2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................