Esha Kedia,New Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle-3,, New Delhi on 17 March, 2025
Esha Kedia vs. ACIT
ordinate Bench of Tribunal, in our view, the assessment completed
u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2015-16 is bad in law and, therefore, is quashed.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.36 seconds)Documents citing
Raj Kumar Kedia, New Delhi vs Assessee on 17 February, 2016
Rannodevi Agarwal, Hyd, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 23 September, 2016
Similar view is also taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Dilip Kedia V/s. ACIT (supra), wherein the penalty was not
sustained as both the returns were filed much before the Explanation 5A
was brought on statute.
Smt. Champa Goel , Panchkula vs Assessee on 21 June, 2016
25. The assessment year under appeal is 2007-08 and due date of filing
of the return was 31.7.2007 u/s 139(1) but no return has been filed by the
assessee by the due date. The due date u/s 139(1) was extended upto
31.3.2009, which was actually extension of due date under section 139(4)
22
of the Act. Therefore, due date had not expired for filing of the return u/s
139(1) (4) of the I.T. Act on the date of search. The assessee in response to
the notice u/s 153A declared entire income including the Short Term
Capital Gain and Misc. income which have been accepted by the Assessing
officer as it is. Therefore, the decisions in the case of Dilip Kedia Vs.
ACIT (supra), Parveen Garg Vs. ACIT (supra), CIT Vs. Jagriti Aggarwal
(supra), ITO Vs. Gope M. Rochlani (supra) and Sarat Chandra Sahoo v
DCIT (supra) are squarely applicable in favour of the assessee.
Inlard Road Transport Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs Assessee on 29 June, 2016
16.4.1. Apropos the addition made towards Jewellery in the sum of Rs. 97,70,729/- , we
find from the above discussions that the jewellery found at the time of search was much
less than the jewellery declared by the family members of the assessee and their HUFs
in their wealth tax returns prior to search and wealth tax assessments on the returns so
filed were completed u/s 16(3) of the Act accordingly for which evidences were
submitted in the paper book filed by the assessee. The Learned CITA had recorded a
categorical finding that there is no material on record that such jewellery declared before
the date of search were subsequently sold or transferred by the assessee or their family
members. We find that the revenue was not able to bring any contrary evidence to this
before us. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this tribunal in the cases of
Tulika Kedia vs ACIT in IT(SS) A No. 71/Cal/1997 which in turn placed reliance on its
other decision in the case of Manju Devi Kedia vs ACIT in IT(SS) A No. 73/Cal/1997
had held as under:-
Venkat Ratnam Meka, Hyd, Hyderabad vs Addl.Cit, Circle-7, Hyd, Hyderabad on 17 February, 2017
i. Dilip Kedia Vs. ACIT [40 taxman.com 102] (Hyderabad-Trib.);
Satish Babu Bethi Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad vs Addl.Cit, Circle-7, Hyd, Hyderabad on 24 February, 2017
i. Dilip Kedia Vs. ACIT [40 taxman.com 102] (Hyderabad-Trib.
Harish Kumar Sarawgi, Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 August, 2016
5.4. We find that the erstwhile and amended provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c)
of the Act have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case
of Dilip Kedia vs ACIT reported in (2013) 40 taxmann.com 102 wherein it was held as below:-
Velji Dharmshi Vavia, Navi Mumbai vs Acit Cc 1, Mumbai on 28 July, 2017
5. Dilip Kedia vs. ACIT - (2013) 40 taxmann.com 102
(Hyderabad - Trib.)
1