LALIT KUMAR GUPTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER BARAN

ITA/203/2015

AI Insights

The case involves multiple income tax appeals filed by Lalit Kumar Gupta against the Income Tax Officer, Baran, concerning the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The core issue revolves around the Tribunal's reliance on earlier observations which led to a remand for de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not deciding the matter on its merits. The High Court of Rajasthan, after reviewing the submissions and the material on record, agreed that the Tribunal had correctly followed the earlier decision and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on the merits post-remand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684405 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PARINITOO JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK
• Keywords: Assessment de novo; Assessment Year; Credit entries; Income tax appeal
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 203 / 2015 Lalit Kumar Gupta ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer Baran ----Respondent Connected With D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 204 / 2015 Lalit Kumar Gupta ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer Baran ----Respondent D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 206 / 2015 Lalit Kumar Gupta ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer Baran ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ Counsel For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak Counsel For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment (2 of 3) [ITA-203/2015] 03/01/2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As the controversy involved in all these appeals is identical, these appeals are decided by this common judgment. In view of the submissions which are made by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has seriously committed error in relying upon the following observations made for the earlier assessment year:- “For the year under consideration the amounts outstanding are Rs. 7,72,800/-. The learned CIT (A) has mentioned that the confirmations from more than 90% per cent of the creditors have been furnished before him. However, we are not having the benefit of going through such confirmations. We, therefore, feel that the matter is required to be considered afresh by the AO. If the credit entries are old and the findings of the AO is that the assessee has paid the amount then addition can be made in the year in which the amounts have been paid such creditors. With these observations, we set aside the order of both the lower authorities and the A.O. is directed to make the assessment de novo as per law.” He contended that the Tribunal ought to have decided the matter on merits. We have gone through the material on record. It is correct that the earlier decision which has been applicable by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted and that is the order on merits after remand. In this regard, the Tribunal has held as under:- “On the other hand, the learned AR has filed the paper book containing 22 page. The learned AR drew our attention to the fact that the AO has already issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The page nos.3 to 19 of the paper book contains the names of (3 of 3) [ITA-203/2015] the creditors alongwith date from which the payments is due and the amount. In some cases, the payments are due for financial year 2003-04 onwards. For the year under consideration, the amounts outstanding are Rs. 7,72,800/-”. We therefore, feel that the matter is required to be considered afresh by the AO. If the credit entries are old and the findings of the AO is that the assessee has paid the amount then addition can be made in the year in which the amounts have been paid to such creditors. With these observations, we set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and the AO is directed to make the assessment de novo as per law.” Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal has committed no error in following the earlier decision in this matter. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. In that view of the matter only on this ground, we remit back the matter to the Tribunal only on the point of decision on merits of the matter after the remand of the CIT (A) and Assessing Officer. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Stay applications also stands disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. /bm gandhi 32-34 "