Jayesh Kantilal Kansara v. Asstt. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dharamraj v. ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0661 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara v. Pr. CIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 3783 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Savita Kapila v. Asstt. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2938 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asstt. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1880 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0496 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 8004 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3564 (Mad-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1195 (Srt-Trib) IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M. Jayesh Kantilal Kansara v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 888/SRT/2023 11 March, 2024 Assessee by: Rajesh Upadhyay, A.R. Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr.-D.R. ORDER *A.L. Saini, A.M.* Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short NFAC/Ld CIT (A)) dated 20-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 29-12-2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to upheld assessing officers action to issue notice for assessment as well as to carry out and finalize assessment proceedings upon the deceased Shri Jayesh Kantilal Kansara. 2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld assessing officer's addition of Rs. 59,56,500 under section 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the said amount is a part of appellants turnover on which profit is already taxed by the assessing officer consequently it amounts to double taxation. 3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessing officers addition of Rs. 59,56,500 on irrelevant ground that Essar Oil Ltd. is only a limited company and not a public sector oil marketing company, so, not eligible to collect OHD during demonetization period by ignoring and overlooking the fact that the appellant had sold petrol and diesel to the customers on retail basis. Amount of cash sale is deposited in bank and in turn payment was made to Essar Oil Ltd. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in holding that the appellant has accepted OHD during demonetization period from his retail customers. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessing officers action to charge Income Tax at maximum rate @ 60% under section 115BBE of the Act overlooking the facts that the sum of Rs. 59,56,500 is a part of total turnover amounting to business receipts and the assessing officer has also taxed net profit on the said sum of Rs. 59,56,500. Consequently, section 68 and section 115BBE cannot be invoked to the facts of appellants case. 3. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows. The assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 29-9-2017, declaring total income at Rs. 18,27,790. Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 24-9-2018. Then after, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee through ITBA portal. In response to the notices issued, the details/submissions were furnished by the assessee online electronically in E-proceeding through Efiling portal. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of running petrol pump as a retailer of M/s Essar Oil Ltd. On perusal of information contained in the data base of the system (SFT-14), it came to notice that cash deposit during the demonetization period has been made by the assessee at Rs. 2,04,15,500. The details of such cash deposit are as under: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1195 (Srt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH

PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M.

Jayesh Kantilal Kansara v. Asstt. CIT

ITA No. 888/SRT/2023

11 March, 2024

Assessee by: Rajesh Upadhyay, A.R.

Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr.-D.R.

ORDER

A.L. Saini, A.M.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short NFAC/Ld CIT (A)) dated 20-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 29-12-2019.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to upheld assessing officers action to issue notice for assessment as well as to carry out and finalize assessment proceedings upon the deceased Shri Jayesh Kantilal Kansara.

2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld assessing officer's addition of Rs. 59,56,500 under section 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the said amount is a part of appellants turnover on which profit is already taxed by the assessing officer consequently it amounts to double taxation.

3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessing officers addition of Rs. 59,56,500 on irrelevant ground that Essar Oil Ltd. is only a limited company and not a public sector oil marketing company, so, not eligible to collect OHD during demonetization period by ignoring and overlooking the fact that the appellant had sold petrol and diesel to the customers on retail basis. Amount of cash sale is deposited in bank and in turn payment was made to Essar Oil Ltd. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in holding that the appellant has accepted OHD during demonetization period from his retail customers.

4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessing officers action to charge Income Tax at maximum rate @ 60% under section 115BBE of the Act overlooking the facts that the sum of Rs. 59,56,500 is a part of total turnover amounting to business receipts and the assessing officer has also taxed net profit on the said sum of Rs. 59,56,500. Consequently, section 68 and section 115BBE cannot be invoked to the facts of appellants case.

3. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows. The assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 29-9-2017, declaring total income at Rs. 18,27,790. Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 24-9-2018. Then after, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee through ITBA portal. In response to the notices issued, the details/submissions were furnished by the assessee online electronically in E-proceeding through Efiling portal. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of running petrol pump as a retailer of M/s Essar Oil Ltd. On perusal of information contained in the data base of the system (SFT-14), it came to notice that cash deposit during the demonetization period has been made by the assessee at Rs. 2,04,15,500. The details of such cash deposit are as under: