Lalit Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Baran

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 PathakCounsel For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 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 counselfor the appellant that the Tribunal has seriously committed error inrelying upon the following observations made for the earlierassessment year:- “For the year under consideration the amountsoutstanding are Rs. 7,72,800/-. The learned CIT (A)has mentioned that the confirmations from morethan 90% per cent of the creditors have beenfurnished before him. However, we are not havingthe benefit of going through such confirmations. We,therefore, feel that the matter is required to beconsidered afresh by the AO. If the credit entries areold and the findings of the AO is that the assesseehas paid the amount then addition can be made inthe year in which the amounts have been paid suchcreditors. With these observations, we set aside theorder of both the lower authorities and the A.O. isdirected to make the assessment de novo as perlaw.” He contended that the Tribunal ought to have decided thematter on merits. We have gone through the material on record. It is correctthat the earlier decision which has been applicable by the Tribunaland the matter was remitted and that is the order on merits afterremand. In this regard, the Tribunal has held as under:- “On the other hand, the learned AR has filed thepaper book containing 22 page. The learned AR drewour attention to the fact that the AO has alreadyissued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessmentyear 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The pagenos.3 to 19 of the paper book contains the names of the creditors alongwith date from which thepayments is due and the amount. In some cases,the payments are due for financial year 2003-04onwards. For the year under consideration, theamounts outstanding are Rs. 7,72,800/-”. Wetherefore, feel that the matter is required to beconsidered afresh by the AO. If the credit entries areold and the findings of the AO is that the assesseehas paid the amount then addition can be made inthe year in which the amounts have been paid tosuch creditors. With these observations, we set asidethe orders of both the lower authorities and the AOis directed to make the assessment de novo as perlaw.” 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 onmerits. In that view of the matter only on this ground, we remitback the matter to the Tribunal only on the point of decision onmerits of the matter after the remand of the CIT (A) andAssessing 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