TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 191/RPR/2011 both for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issue in the MA's filed by the revenue in the aforesaid cases were on identical, interwoven and connected issue wherein an addition of Rs. 45 lakhs u/s 69A of the IT Act was made in the hands of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi on substantial basis, and the same addition was made in the hands of Shri Virendra Pandey on protective basis. While deciding the impugned ITA's by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ajit Jogi, wherein the department was in appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable on account of low tax effect by applying CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018. Under the same common order ITA 191/RPR/2011 in the case of Shri Virendra Pandey was decided in favour of the assessee, since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....records and the same is requested to rectified by recalling the order of ITAT in ITA NO. 124/RPR/2011 dated 17/01/2019. 4. Against the contention raised by the department, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issues raised in the ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 were not covered by the exception clause in Para 10(e) of the CBDT's Circular No. 13/2018, since, the information based on which the department has completed the assessment was collected and not provided by or received from the CBI. Accordingly, as the information was not received from CBI the case of the assessee should not be considered to be covered by the exception clause to CBDT's circulars as referred to (supra). 5. Ld. AR drew our attention to the assessment order dated 29/12/2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have considered the rival contention, perused the material available on record and orders of the ITAT as well as the revenue authorities. On perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on the basis of statement of Shri Virendra Pandey, the complainant which were recorded on oath u/s 131 of the IT Act, wherein certain transactions pertaining to assessee were unearthed and, therefore, the assessee was requested to present facts and evidences in support of his case in absence of which the Assessing Officer was at liberty to treat the amount of Rs. 45 Lakh as undisclosed Income of the assessee. In the later part of the assessment order, it has been emerged that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Director general of GST intelligence (DGGI)". Consequently, the contention raised by the Revenue in filing of the present MA are found to be on right footing, therefore are appropriate, thus, the order passed in ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 is directed to be recall and to consider the grounds therein for fresh adjudication on merits. 8. In the result, MA 31/RPR/2019 of the revenue is allowed, in terms of our observations. MA No. 32/RPR/2019, (Arising out of ITA No. 191/RPR/2011) (Assessment Year:2004-05) 9. The revenue has raised the similar contentions, as were assailed in MA No. 131/RPR/2019 that the case of the assessee is cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 17/01/2019 in ITA No. 191/RPR/2011 wherein the issues raised by the appellant Mr. Virendra Pandey were decided in favour of the assessee, observing as under: "10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that additions have been made on protective basis in the case of assessee whereas the substantive additions have been made in the case of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi. We, while deciding the appeal of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi, have here-in-above dismissed the appeal of Revenue in Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi's case. In such circumstances, we are of the view, that when the assessment where substantive additions have been set aside, assessment in the case of assessee in whose hands the....