TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Assessee : Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.) For the Revenue : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur dated 31.03.2022 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2007-08 which in turn arise from the order dated 30.01.2015 passed under section 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward-4(3), Jaipur. 2. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-4 Jaipur, the assessee has preferred this appeal on following grounds: - 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in conforming the addition. The addition so made and confirmed by CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full. 2. The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/148 dated 30.02.2015 also kindly be quashed. 3. The impugned order u/s 143(3)/148 dated 31.03.2022 is bad in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur to khudi Tehsil- Fatehpur on the direction of his brother in law Shri Babulal Jat S/o Shri Dula Ram Jat, R/o Khudi, Tehsil- Fatehpur, Distt.- Sikar. Further he also stated that one unknown person handed over this money to him in Jaipur for handing over to Shri Babu Lal Jat. 3.1 Further during the inquires conducted by the I.T.O. Ward-2, Sikar statements u/s 131 were also recorded on oath of Shri Babu lal on 10.11.2006 and in the statements he was asked to explain the source of above money. In the statements he stated that out of above Rs. 15,65,000/- a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- belongs to him and were received by him based on sale agreement of land in the Village. No evidences except a copy of agreement written on plain paper has been furnished by him. He was asked that when he is not owner of the land how he can enter in to an agreement for sale, no satisfactory evidence or reply was available with him. He further stated that balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- belongs to one Sh. Ram Karan Jat of Udinsar, Tehsil-Fatehpur. But no evidence in this regard has been furnished. Therefore, the story cooked up by Sh. Babu Lal is not believable in the absence of any documentary evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the postal authority with the comments प्राप्तकर्ता विदेश गया हुआ है अतः वापस The AO observed that since the seized amount was released in favour of the appellant and as the same was deposited in his bank account, therefore the contention of the appellant that this money belongs to Shri Babu Lal Jat was not accepted by the AO. Further as during the course of enquiries, no evidence regarding the source of Rs. 15,65,000/- could be furnished by Shri Babu Lal Jat, therefore the contention of the appellant was not accepted and the aforesaid amount was treated as undisclosed income of the appellant and was added back to total income of the appellant. (iv) Before me, the appellant has contended that Rs. 8,65,000/- belonged to Shri Babu Lal Jat and Rs. 7,00,000/- belonged to one Shri Ramkaran Kulhari. It was also brought to my notice that the AO of Shri Babu Lal Jat i.e. the ITO Ward-2, Sikar himself recorded a categorical finding at page 3 that the assessee i.e, Sh. Babu Lal Jat claimed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of same on the income determined by the appellant order. Further the appellant has not filed any submission as to how the interest has not been correctly calculated. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal No. 3 raised by the appellant on this issue is dismissed. 7.1 The last ground of appeal is that the appellant craves right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 7.1 The appellant has not added or altered any of the above mentioned grounds of appeal. Accordingly such mention by the appellant in its ground is treated as general in nature, not needing any specific adjudication and is accordingly treated as disposed off. 8. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5. As the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), this appeal is preferred on the grounds as reproduced at para 2 above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied upon the submission so made before the ld. CIT(A) and the same is not reproduced for the sake of brevity. The ld. AR submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,65,000/- was found from the assessee and was added as his income based on the finding recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. The lower autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
