RAGHAV AGARWAL (HUF),KANPUR V. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

ITA 275/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Raghav Agarwal (HUF) against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal included the validity of proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the adequacy of reasons recorded for reassessment, and the legality of additions made under various sections including unexplained cash credit and expenditures for procuring credit. The assessee contested the reassessment and the subsequent additions, arguing that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and the additions were contrary to the facts and law. However, before the tribunal could deliberate on these issues, the assessee opted to withdraw the appeal following the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31858 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA; ADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GARG
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reopening of assessment; Borrowed satisfaction; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.275/LKW/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Raghav Agarwal (HUF) 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Kanpur-208004. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3) Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. PAN:AANHR2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent by: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 22 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.02.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding that the proceedings initiated u/s 148 was valid and in accordance with law, which finding is erroneous, misconceived, the reassessment being without jurisdiction, be quashed. 2. Because on a proper reading of the reasons as recorded u/s 148(2), it would be found that the reasons are vague, in as much as there is no name of the company, number of shares/scrips and how the LTCGs is bogus, only roving and fishing enquiry, incomplete, leading nowhere, there being no nexus between the material and the reasons recorded, far less any satisfaction of the AO, the entire proceedings initiated right from recording of reasons, issue of notice u/s 148 and reassessment thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the same be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and has erred in law in as much as he has not perused even the reasons as recorded, the approval has been given mechanically in a most casual manner, by the PCIT, making the entire proceedings of reassessment void-ab-initio, bad in law, the Same be quashed. ITA No.275/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 3 4. Because the entire re-opening of assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction, applying incorrect provisions of law, without making any independent enquiry which the AO himself has admitted in the reasons recorded, putting the cart before the horse, reopening on such borrowed satisfaction without enquiry is not permissible u/s 147, the assessment framed be quashed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 84,85,078/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 as against LTCGs claimed by the assessee, exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 6. Because the CIT(A) has ignored the plethora of evidences filed before the AO and before him, with respect to the transactions as entered upon and has summarily dismissed the appeal holding, the explanation and the evidences as not satisfactory, ignoring the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sale of shares which all stand verifiable through proper banking channels and demat account, the addition made by the AO denying the exemption u/s.10(38) and as upheld by the CIT(A), be deleted. 7. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding an addition of Rs.84,851/- made u/s 69C, being expenditure alleged to have been incurred for procuring the credit, in as much as there is no material to establish that the expenditure has been actually incurred, the addition made is totally unwarranted be deleted. 8. Because the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the invoking of the provisions of section 115BBE, in as much as the sale consideration of shares added u/s 68 is neither unexplained nor the explanation /evidences filed have been found to false or untrue, levying an extra tax liability of Rs.52,56,507/-, which is contrary to the provisions of law be deleted. 9. Because the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is all without following the provisions of law making the reassessment bad in law, against the principles of natural justice be quashed.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 21.01.2025 along with Form no. 04 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 21.01.2025 is reproduced as under: - “The above appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 29.02.2024 of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi and fixed for hearing before the Hon'ble Bench on Wednesday January 22, 2025. The appellant has participated in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-24 and hence does not want to pursue the appeal further. Form no. 04 as received from the office of the PCIT, Kanpur is attached. The appeal be treated withdrawn as infructuous.” 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. ITA No.275/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 3 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, a liberty is given to the assessee for approaching the Tribunal for restoration of this appeal in the event of failure of settlement of tax disputes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 06/02/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar "