BALA DEVI,JAIPUR RURAL V. ITO, JAIPUR

ITA 1306/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Bala Devi, an agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Pune, which sustained an addition of Rs.14,45,240 to her income for the assessment year 2013-14. The addition was made on the grounds of unexplained investment in agricultural land. The assessee argued that the income was agricultural, exempt from tax, and that the notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were not complied with due to her inability to understand them and the lack of assistance from the AO for spot inquiries. The ITAT found merit in giving the assessee another opportunity to present her case, considering her age and the circumstances of her son's death, which had prevented her from managing her tax affairs timely.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784395 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHITA CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM SUNDER JANGID
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment; Onus to prove; Source of fund; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 10/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 12 /11 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Pune dated 04-06-2024 for the assessment year 2013- 14 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in (1) sustaining addition of Rs.14,45,240/- without adequate justification and total disregards of the facts that amount of Rs.14,45,240/- represent agricultural income which is exempt from tax and there is no evidence that assessee has earned non-agriculture income liable to levy of tax. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 2 Issuing notice u/s 148 to the assessee mentioning escaped income whereas there was no such escapement of income, as the appellant only sources of income is agriculture which was not liable to tax. The notice issued u/s 148 no. 44 dt. 23 April 2015/ 24 April 2015 deserves to be quashed in this ground alone. 3. Not considering the written submission made before ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur in the course of personal hearing dt. 29-01-2019, later on through e-proceedings at ITD Portal on dt. 1-02-2021, dt 11-04-2023 and dt 12-04-2024 with paper book pages 25. 4. Informing vital evidence filed by the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur during the personal hearing and online in support of the facts that there was no business income liable to income tax. 5. mentioning erroneous facts that assessee has not tendered any evidence in support of agriculture income and on remand report sent by the AO whereas written submission with evidence of agriculture income in the form of sale proceeds of agriculture produce and receipts issued by M/s. Deepachand Dayanand, A-23,Terminal Market, Muhana Road, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 were presented. This evidence was tendered in the course of personal hearings and repeated in online-proceedings submissions.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 51 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 22-09-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’Sub:- Application for condonation of delay of appeal filed The appellant is agriculturist age of 90 years is residing very interior in village where media and other communication facility is not proper and I am also uneducated lady. The appeal which has filed 51 days delay. The delay main reason is due to death of my son Sh. Badu Ram Jat S/o Late sh. Bharuram Jat, who died on dt. 20//05/2025 due illness who was support me and handle income- tax matter proceedings matter. Therefore, in the situation I could not file the appeal before your honor in prescribed time and I have enclosed herewith an affidavit and death certificate of Late sh. Boduram in this regard. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR Sir, I pray before your honor to condon the delay of filed the appeal for AY 2013- 2014.’’ To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts as to the delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and taking into consideration the assessee senior citizen aged of 90 years of the assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in late filing the appeal before ITAT. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.Addl. JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-submission of bills and vouchers of the agricultural crops and also did not submit his comments on the remand report submitted by the AO. The relevant observations as made by the ld.Addl. /JCIT(A)at para 6.2 to 6.5 of his order is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR ‘’6.2 The assessee did not comply with the above notice us. 148 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 within required period as specified in the above notice. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act 1961 dated 10.05.2016, 17:06 2016. 18.07.2016 and show cause notice dated 18.07.2016 were issued to the assesseeee during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration which were got served upon the assessee through registered post dated 12.05 2016, 20.06.2016 and 19.07.2016 respectively but the assessee failed to comply with the above notices/letter and the assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration was finalized u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 14,45,240/- on 29.07.2018 making the addition of Rs. 14,45,240/- on account of unexplained investment 6.3 Appellant kept on avoiding submitting responses to the notices citing various reasons like she doesn't understand English, notices were served beyond dates, the AO didn't send someone to do spot enquiries, the villagers told her that the said land is agricultural land so the question of taxing doesn't arise etc. None of the reasons given by the appellant is satisfactory. The argument of the appellant that she had taken opinion of villagers on the notices received by her itself shows that appellant had received notices and willingly avoided responding to the notices. The appellant kept on pressing that AO didn't send someone to assist her with the contents of the notices and AO missed to do the spot enquiries However, the appellant has connived at the fact that the onus to prove the genuineness of nature and source of money used for purchasing agricultural land is on the appellant. 6.4 The appellant stated in his submission that he sold the goods through M/s. Deep Chand Dayanand, Sanganer in the years 2011-12. 2012-13 and 2013-14 which cannot be coordinated with the investment in purchasing of immovable property in cash during the financial year 2012-13 related to the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant submitted the fabricated and false details of source of investment which are not acceptable. Now it has been crystal clear that the appellant made the unexplained investment in purchasing of above immovable property. I agree with the comments of the AO in remand report. When appellant was given opportunity for rebuttal of the facts stated in remand report, appellant again failed to submit the required evidences to prove the source of money. Appellant simply stated that the appellant again submits that the entire cost of land cannot be unexplained income. 6.5 Appellant kept on insisting on spot enquiries of the land, however as the assessment year was AY 2013-14, I am of the view that the spot enquires to ascertain which agricultural crops were taken 10 years back are not going to help the enquiry. I am also of the view that the appellant could have submitted the bills, vouchers of the agricultural crops sold and discharged its onus of submitting proof for generation of Income required for purchasing the land rather than insisting on spot enquiry of the land which anyways can’t ascertain agricultural Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR activities a decade back. This office has sent letter to Appellant on 17.05.2024 to provide comments on Remand Report submitted by Assessing Officer on or before 30.05.2024. However, the Appellant has not submitted any comments/reply on Remand Report submitted by A.O. Hence, thegrounds no 1 to 4 are hereby DISMISSED, 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that though the assessee placed on record the additional evidence and ld. CIT(A) called for remand report upon which the assessee could not submit their comment and thereby the appeal was dismissed. So he submitted that the so far as the merits of the dispute the assessee prays one more chance which may be provided to the assessee to contest the case before the ld.Addl. /JCIT(A) as the ld.Addl. /JCIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and without going through the facts and legality of the case. To support his arguments, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed the following documents before the Bench. S.N. Particulars Page No. 1. Written submissions 1-4 2. Agriculture land purchased 5-9 3. Girdawari report issued by Revenue Deptt. Dated 24-01-2019 10-13 4. Agriculture produce sale proof 14-17 5. Notices for physical hearings 18-19 6. Faceles submission acknowledgement 20-22 7. Vakalatnama 23 8. Reference decided cases 24-27 Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. It is further noted that the Department had received information from DIT(I&CI) vide letter dated 25- 11-2021 that the assessee during the year consideration had purchased agriculture land situated at Village Sherawarpura,Tehsil-Amer, Distt. Jaipur vide registered sale deed dated 09-01-2013 in cash from Shri Kalyan Sahai Jat r/o Village Kalwad, Jaipur for Rs.14,45,240/- including registration charges of Rs.70,240/-. While enquiry u/s 133(6) made by the ITO (I&CI)-1, Jaipur the assessee failed to explain the source of said investment and thus source of investment made by the assessee remained unexplained. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assesseeon 24-04-2015 which was duly served through registered post but the assessee did not comply with the notice. Hence, the AO had no other option except to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and thus made the addition of Rs.14,45,240/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR ‘’As per the details and documents available on records during the year under consideration the assessee has made investment of Rs. 14,45,240/- (13,75,000/- purchase of land & 70,240/- for registration charges) in cash in purchase of agriculture land situated at village-Sherawatpura, Tehsil - Amer, Distt. Jaipur from Sh. Kalyan Sahai Jat, Village- Kalwad, Jaipur vide sale deed dated 09.01.2013. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued in the case u/s 148 and 142(1), show cause notice us 144(1) along with notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 18.07.2016 fixing the case for hearing on 27.07.2016 requiring the assessee to explain as to why the said amount of investment may not be treated his unexplained investment made in purchase of agriculture land out of his undisclosed sources and why the same may not be added to his total income treating the same as undisclosed income for the year under consideration. However, in response to the above the assessee made no compliance. Since the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 14,45,240- made in purchase of agriculture land the same is treated to be made out of his undisclosed Income. Therefore, the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,45,240/- is treated as total income of the assessee From the above it is clear that assessee has concealed the particulars of her income and also failed to comply with the notices issued u's 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 before the revenue. Further, the assessee has also failed to furnish her retum of income required as per the provision of section 139(1) or by the provisos to that sub section before the end of the relevant assessment year and also in compliance to the notice issued uls 148 of the LT.Act, 1961. Therefore it is a ft case of for initiation of penalty proceedings u's 271(1) 271(1)(b) & 271F of the LT. Act, 1961 In view of above discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed at 14,45,240/-.‘’ Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not submit any commentary/ reply on Remand Report submitted by the AO. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench feels that the assessee considering his age and merits of the dispute he may be given one more opportunity to adduce the documents before the AO as to the addition made by him as the assessee was ex-parte before the AO. The grievance of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition without adequate justification by ignoring the documents produced before him. However, in the interest of equity and justice, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO.1306/JPR/2025 SMT. BALA DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12 /11/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Mrs. Bala Devi, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(4), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1306/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "