Case Law Details
Sh. Rajeev Goyal Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
In ITA 149/Chd/2021, in the case of Shri Rajiv Goyal, it has been alleged by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the issue of addition to capital account amounting to Rs. 3,63,458/- on account of compensation received and another issue of an amount of Rs. 2,55,800/- pertaining to property in Meerpur has apparently not been enquired into by the AO. A perusal of the record shows that this allegation of the Ld. Pr. CIT is correct in so far as no query has been raised by the AO on these two issues and neither has the assessee made any submissions either before the AO or even before the Ld. PR. CIT on these two issues even when the said issues were duly mentioned in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we have no option but to uphold the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act on these two issues. However, the remaining other issue in the impugned order is the nonacceptance of the trading results by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The same is not upheld in view of our detailed observations and findings in ITA No. 150/Chd/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 in the case of M/s Pardeep Ispat (P) Ltd which has identical facts. Therefore, the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are partly upheld and the impugned 263 order stands modified in ITA No. 149/Chd/2021 in the case of Shri Rajeev Goyal and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
The captioned six appeals, preferred by the respective assesses, are directed against the separate orders dated 30.3.2021 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Since common issues have been raised in all these appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
