AMIT KUAMR,BEHROR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

ITSSA 2/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an amount of Rs. 16.15 Lacs intercepted from the possession of the assessee, Amit Kumar, during a trip to Madhya Pradesh. The cash was reportedly collected on behalf of his brother, Mr. Kavit Kumar, who runs a cement factory. The Income Tax Department, after requisition under section 132A and issuance of notice under section 153A, added this amount as unexplained income under section 69A. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, however, found procedural lapses and insufficient consideration of the evidence provided, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717671 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND GUPTA; LD
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 153A; 131; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS) A No. 02/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Amit Kumar, 1, Pooja Iron Store, Old Bus Stand Road, Behror, Alwar 301701 PAN No. AMBPK7137K ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT,Central Circle, Alwar …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Anand Gupta, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld.DR Date of hearing : 29/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 12/08/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jaipur -4, dated 18.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Printed from counselvise.com 2 1. That the Ld CIT (Appeal) erred in accepting the order of AO, whereas there was no service of notice u/s. 143(2) and no show-cause notice was issued. 2. The Ld.CIT (Appeal) erred is accepting the documents filed during the appeal as additional evidence and not consider the same. 3. That Ld.CIT (Appeal) erred in holding the order of the AO without appreciating the fact placed by the assessee during the appeal that the cash was not related to him. 4. That the Ld CIT (Appeal) erred in accepting the cash Of Rs 16,45,400/-as unexplained under section 69 of the Act. 5. That the assessee party to grant to add or alter any ground of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2018 an amount of Rs. 16.15 Lacs was intercepted from the possession of the assessee by Thana-In-Charge, city kotwali, Distt. Morena. The information was passed on to the department and requisition u/s. 132A of the Act was made on 15.11.2018 by the Pr. Director of Income Tax, Bhopal. In consequence to this, a notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring to file the return. The assessee filed a return in response to the same declaring total income at Rs. 6,72,800/-. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 153A of the Act by adding the amount u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn, confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com 3 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith the grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee is a partner in the firm having business income u/s. 44AE of the Act. During the year under consideration, he visited the State of Madhya Pradesh on the request of his brother Mr. Kavit Kumar to collect outstanding payments from the parties to whom his brother, i.e. Mr. Kavit Kumar sold the goods.After collection of sales amounts on his brother’s behalf, Thana in Charge, city kotwali, Distt. Morena checked the vehicle and informed the department about the amount of Rs. 16.15 Lacs. In his statement, the assessee submitted that the amount belongs to his brother, who is running a cement factory at Behror (Alwar) and also provided all the details from whom he collected the cash. It is pertinent to mention here that the brother of the assessee and director of the cement factory M/s. Thukral Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. has also confirmed that the cash belongs to his company. 4. The brother of the assessee also produced copy of bills, ledger and cash book of the company before the officer at the time of the statements recorded u/s. 131 of the Act for verification. Mr. Kavit Kumar, brother of the assessee and director of the cement factory M/s. Thukral Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. has also furnished an affidavit before the AO claiming the ownership of the cash. The AO and the Ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the assessee simply on the reason that out of total 9 parties (Details are there in the assessment order vide, para 7 and Ld. CIT(A)’s order para 5.2) only 3 parties, i.e. Mr. Vijay Singh Sikarwar, Mr. Vaibhav Shrivastava and Mr. Neeraj Pal Sharma mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 4 of the Printed from counselvise.com 4 lists of parties furnished by the assessee. In case of rest of the parties, either notice was returned unserved or they denied the transaction with Mr. Kavit Kumar. 5. Out of the total amount Rs. 16.15 Lacs, amount belonging to Mr. Vijay Singh Sikarwar, Mr. Vaibhav Shrivastava and Mr. Neeraj Pal Sharma mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 4 of the lists was Rs. 5.4 Lacs and even this was also added back as income in the hands of the assessee. This confirms that the issue of the assessee was handled with a casual approach and a predetermined manner. Notwithstanding the above facts, once the brother of the assessee filed an affidavit before the AO and owned the amount, the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) were totally silent on the same, without dealing with the contents of the affidavit filed. 6. Not dealing with the affidavit filed by the brother of the assessee is a serious lapse in the whole proceeding carried out by the AO and also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Affidavit is not a simple piece of document which can be ignored so simply, especially when the same is duly corroborated with the sales bills, ledger and cash book of the company concerned, i.e. M/s. Thukral Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. The affidavit of the brother of the assessee was duly reconciled with the statement obtained u/s. 131 of the Act and can’t be neglected like this. Proper procedure in this case after the amount was being owned by the brother of the assessee would have been to issue notice u/s. 153C of the Act to Mr. Kavit Kumar/M/s. Thukral Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. In our considered opinion, after discussing the facts of the matter, the assessee duly discharged his burden and rather the authorities below acted casually and in defiance of the procedure Printed from counselvise.com 5 laid down by the Board. Resultantly, relevant substantive ground nos. 3 and 4 raised by the appellant are allowed and the AO is directed to delete the whole addition of Rs. 16.15 Lacs. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 12th day of August 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 12/08/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 4. िवभागीय \u000eितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 12.08.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 12.08.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "