AI Insights
The case involves a series of appeals filed by Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia against the orders of the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, concerning the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20. The appeals primarily challenged the additions made by the AO under various sections of the Income Tax Act, alleging these were based on information received from authorities under the PBPT Act without independent verification. The appellant argued that the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the PBPT Act are distinct and serve different purposes. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decisions, leading to the filing of these appeals. The tribunal noted the appellant's health issues as a reason for non-compliance and decided to provide another opportunity for the appellant to present his case before the AO.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132398 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-06-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
29-05-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
08-03-2023
Judgement Text
vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B” JAIPUR JhlaanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 110/JP/2023 TO 116/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 TO 2019-20 Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia D-10, Anand Vihar, Jagatpura Jaipur – 302 017 cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS 5593 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 30/05/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26 /06/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH:- The assessee has filed seven appeals against different orders of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur all dated 23-12-2022 for the assessment years 2013-14 TO 2019- 20 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’ITA No. 110/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2013-14 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming various additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and 2 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfil. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.20,00,000 /- made by ld.AO on allegation of investment in Benami Land, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 4.1. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs. 20,00,000/- by alleging Sh. Ramji Lal Meena as benamidar of assessee solely because agreements of property were found in assessee’s possession. Appellant prays that no such investment whatsoever was made by assessee in the name of Shri Ramji Lal Meena nor any evidence has been brought on record by ld. CIT(A) regarding payment made by assessee for such investment, therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 4..2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.1,25,000/- on allegation of unaccounted investment in Agriculture Land allegedly made by assessee in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.15,51,21,448/- in the hands of assessee (being sale consideration received by Sh. Ram Ji Lal Meena on sale of certain properties) by alleging that Sh. Ramji Lal Meena is benamidar of assessee, arbitrarily. Appellant prays that no property was sold by him during the year under consideration and at least not the impugned properties as these were not owned by assessee and these were rather in the legal ownership of Shri Ramji Lal Meena and therefore the addition made is solely on presumption basis and deserves to be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.1,63,00,000/- by alleging investment in flat in the name of Sh. Mridual Sisodia as unexplained investment of assessee, arbitrarily. 3 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.14,40,18,978/- by incorrectly presuming without any evidence and arbitrarily that investment in agriculture land made by Sh. Ramjilal Meena is instead made by assessee and further alleging that same is unexplained. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.3,18,00,000/- by alleging that the investment in purchase of property in the name of various persons has been made by the assessee and further alleging that such investment is unexplained in the case of assessee solely on the basis of information received from ITO (I &CI), without any independent evidences and without providing assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO of Rs.6,08,90,702/- by alleging the same as unexplained investment in purchase of property in the name of benamidars (Sh. RamDhan Meena and Smt. Sita Devi), arbitrarily. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ‘’ ITA No. 111/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2014-15 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming various additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfil. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. 4 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.57,41,400/- made by ld.AO on allegation of investment in Benami Land, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 4.1. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 57,41,400/- made by ld.AO by alleging Sh. Ram Dhan Meena as benamidar of assessee solely because agreements of property were found in assessee’s possession. Appellant prays that no such investment whatsoever was made by assessee in the name of Shri Ram Dhan Meena nor any evidence has been brought on record by ld.AO regarding payment made by assessee for such investment, therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.47,81,100/- made by ld.AO on allegation of unaccounted investment in Agriculture Land allegedly made by assessee in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.15,56,286/- made by ld.AO on allegation of unaccounted investment in Agriculture Land allegedly made by assessee in the name of Sh. RamJi Lal Meena, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,16,14,680/- made by ld.AO on allegation of investment in Benami properties, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 7.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,16,14,680/- made by ld.AO by alleging Sh. Ram Dhan Meena as benamidar of assessee solely on the basis of information received from ITO (I & CI)-, Jaipur without any independent evidences and without providing assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.. Appellant prays that no such investment whatsoever was made by assessee in the name of Shri Ram Dhan Meena nor any evidence has been brought on record by ld.AO regarding payment made by assessee for such investment, therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,08,08,949/- made by ld.AO by alleging the same as unexplained investment in purchase of property in the name of benamidars (Sh. Ram Dhan Meena and Smt. Sita Devi), arbitrarily. 8.1 That, the ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,08,949/- made by ld.AO solely on the basis of information received from office of DCIT (Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan, Jaipur that assessee has made unaccounted investment in purchase of property in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena and Smt. Sita devi, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. Appellant prays no evidence whatsoever 5 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR was brought on record to prove that assessee has made payment for purchase of such properties. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming various additions made by ld.AO by ignoring the fact that those impugned properties were not purchased by the assessee, not purchased in the name of assessee, assessee is not the owner of those properties and without bringing any evidences on record establishing that the investment in these properties have been made by assessee, and thereby further erred in ignoring that question of such alleged investment being unexplained in the hands of assessee does not arise at all. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ITA No. 112/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2015-16 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming various additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfil. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,94,00,000/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee on sale of agriculture land owned by Shri Ramji Lal Meena. 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,94,00,000/- made by ld.AO in the hands 6 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR of assessee (sale consideration received by Sh. Ram Ji Lal Meena on sale of certain properties owned by him) by alleging that Sh. Ramji Lal Meena is benamidar of assessee, arbitrarily. Appellant prays that no property was sold by him during the year under consideration and at least not the impugned properties as these were not owned by assessee and these were rather in the legal ownership of Shri Ramji Lal Meena and therefore the addition made is solely on presumption basis and deserves to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.30,65,850/- made by ld.AO on allegation of unaccounted investment in Agriculture Land allegedly made by assessee in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,34,50,000/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee being sale consideration received by Sh. Ramdhan Meena and Ramjilal Meena on sale of certain properties by alleging them as benamidars of assessee, arbitrarily. 6.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,34,50,000/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee solely on presumption and without bringing any material on record that assessee has actually received any such consideration. Appellant therefore prays that addition made is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.65,24,000/- made by ld.AO by incorrectly presuming without any evidence and arbitrarily that investment in agriculture land made by Sh. Ram Dhan Meena is instead made by assessee and further alleging that same is unexplained u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 65,24,000/- made by ld.AO by alleging Sh. Ram Dhan Meena as benamidar of assessee solely because agreements of property were found in assessee’s possession. Appellant prays that no such investment whatsoever was made by assessee in the name of Shri Ram Dhan Meena nor any evidence has been brought on record by ld.AO regarding payment made by assessee for such investment, therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- made by ld.AO by alleging the same as unaccounted cash receipts arbitrarily. 8.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- made by ld.AO on the basis of some page 10 of exhibit 4 found during the course of search. Appellant prays such document was neither in the handwriting of assessee nor did any entry found noted on such paper pertained to the assessee, and therefore addition made by ld.AO without bringing any cogent material on record, deserves to be deleted. 7 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,93,35,448/-. 9.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,93,35,448/- made by ld.AO by alleging it to be the unexplained investment made by the assessee despite the facts that property was purchased by Sh. Ram Dhan Meena and Smt. Sita Devi. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ITA No. 113/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2016-17 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,54,41,950/- made by ld.AO being sale consideration received by Sh. Ramdhan Meena and Ramjilal Meena on sale of certain properties in the hands of assessee, by alleging them as benamidars of assessee, arbitrarily. 3.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,54,41,950/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee solely on presumption and without bringing any material on record that assessee has actually received any such consideration. Appellant therefore prays that addition made is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,69,010/- made by ld.AO by alleging the same as unaccounted cash receipts arbitrarily. 8 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 4.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,69,010/- made by ld.AO on the basis of some page 10 of exhibit 4 found during the course of search. Appellant prays such document was neither in the handwriting of assessee nor did any entry found noted on such paper pertained to the assessee, and therefore addition made by ld.AO without bringing any cogent material on record, deserves to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming various additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfill. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,35,88,970/- made by ld.AO by incorrectly presuming arbitrarily and without evidence that investment in Agriculture Land made by Sh. Ram Dhan Meena is instead made by assessee and by further alleging that such investment is unexplained in the case of assessee and thereby erred in adding it u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily, in the case of assessee. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ITA No. 114/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2017-18 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,18,58,293/- made by ld.AO being sale consideration received by Sh. Ramdhan Meena and Ramjilal Meena on sale of certain properties in the hands of assessee, by alleging them as benamidars of assessee, arbitrarily. 9 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 3.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,18,58,293/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee solely on presumption and without bringing any material on record that assessee has actually received any such consideration. Appellant therefore prays that addition made is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.AO has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.56,06,510/- made by ld.AO by alleging the same as unaccounted cash receipts arbitrarily. 4.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.56,05,510/- made by ld.AO on the basis of some page 10 of exhibit 4 found during the course of search. Appellant prays such document was neither in the handwriting of assessee nor did any entry found noted on such paper pertained to the assessee, and therefore addition made by ld.AO without bringing any cogent material on record, deserves to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the making various additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfill. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.77,57,320/- made by ld.AO by incorrectly presuming arbitrarily and without evidence that investment in Agriculture Land made by Sh. Ram Dhan Meena is instead made by assessee and by further alleging that such investment is unexplained in the case of assessee and thereby erred in adding it u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily, in the case of assessee. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ITA No. 115/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2018-19 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming additions made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act by brushing aside the decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022, which holds that Amendment to Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment 10 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Act,2016 is applicable prospectively and therefore transactions taking place prior to that cannot be treated as Benami as per Amendment Act. Appellant prays that addition made by ld.AO on account of transactions (though not pertaining to assessee) mentioned to have been taken place in “Transaction period” prior to 01.11.2016 (i.e. date when amendment Act came in force) deserves to be deleted in toto. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.53,91,352/- made by ld.AO, being sale consideration received by Sh. Ramdhan Meena and Ramjilal Meena on sale of certain properties in the hands of assessee, by alleging them as benamidars of assessee, arbitrarily. 3.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.53,91,352/- made by ld.AO in the hands of assessee solely on presumption and without bringing any material on record that assessee has actually received any such consideration. Appellant therefore prays that addition made is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition made by ld.AO on the basis of information received from authorities under PBPT Act without independently applying his mind and also ignoring the facts and law that provisions of Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are altogether different, they work on different pedestal and have different objectives to fulfill. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,81,500/- made by ld.AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 5.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,81,500/- made by ld.AO solely on the basis of statements recorded during the course of search and without bringing any corroborative material to substantiate such addition. Appellant prays that such statements were recorded on dotted lines and no cognizance could be given to such statements in the absence of any supporting evidences and therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ITA No. 116/JP/2023 -Assessment Year 2019-20 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order passed by ld.AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 11 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,84,400/- made by ld.AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 2.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,84,400/- made by ld.AO by alleging cash found during the course of search as unexplained. Appellant prays that source of cash so found was duly explained as partly out of withdrawal made from bank and partly out of savings coupled with pin money of family members. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 3.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1000/- made by ld.AO solely on the basis of statements recorded during the course of search and without bringing any corroborative material to substantiate such addition. Appellant prays that such statements were recorded on dotted lines and no cognizance could be given to such statements in the absence of any supporting evidences and therefore consequent addition deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the income Tax Act, arbitrarily. ‘’ 2.1 The Bench noted from the Bunch of the appeals of the assessee that the issues in all the appeals are almost same. Therefore, the Bench decided to take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 to decide it in one go and the decision taken in the assessment year 2013-14 shall be suo motu applicable in other appeals of the assessee. Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 , the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 12 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’ 4.1 The brief facts of the case are that a search seizure operation u/s 132(1) of theAct was conducted on 16.01.2019 at the various premises of Om Agarwal Group and the appellant is one of the members of the group 4.2 Original return was filed by the appellant u/s 139(1) of the Act on 22.03.2014declaring income of Rs. 2,48,360/- Subsequent to the conduct of search, appellant didnot file return of income in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. 5. The first Ground of Appeal that the appellant has raised is purely a legal ground viz-a-vis the assessment completed u/s 144. On the perusal of the order of the AO, I find that the appellant did not file any return in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and nor did furnish any information in response to the notices issued thereafter. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the assessment made as per the Provisions of Section 144 of the Act. This Ground of Appeal is rejected. 5.1 The second Ground of Appeal is with respect to the various additions on the basin of information received from authorities under PBPT Act. On perusal the assessment order, I find that information also received in the case of the appellant from Benami Prohibition Unit, Jaipur, which is based on the seized material and the original sale deeds found from the possession of the appellant, on which the statement of the appellant was also recorded at the time of search proceedings. Benami Prohibition Unit is very much part of the Department and whatever information is gathered and analysed by the unit is part of record and there is nothing on record to show that the AO has not applied his mind. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the utilization of information of Benami Prohibition Unit by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected. 5.2 The third Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act made by the appellant inthe name of the benamiar Shri Ramji Lal Meena. The AO has observed that the appellant has purchased some lands bearing Khasra No 1703, 1730, 1113 to 1118 and paid sale consideration of Rs 20,00,000/ in the name of Sh. Ramji Lal Meena. This addition is based on the seed material and the statement of the appellant recorded during the search, which the appellant could not controvert at the assessment stage and even no information is filed 13 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR during the appellate proceedings to explain the transactions noticed on the fans of seized documents Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is confirmed 5.3 The fourth Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment in agriculture land made by the appellant in the name of Sh Ram Dhan Meena amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/ u/s 69 of the Act. The AD has observed that the sale deed were executed between Sh. Babu Lal Meena & Sh. Ram Dhan Meena for sale of land situated at Khasra Nos 1112 to 1114, 1116 to 1118, 1120-1122, 1130- 1132, 1134, 1136, 1149, 1151, 1153, 1155, 1158 1160, 1442, 1451, 1456-1460 total bigha i.e.10.60 hectares of Vill. Kukas, Amer. Copies of cheques issued to Shri Babu Lal Meena as consideration for sale of above land are also shown during the search action by the team. The sale consideration given to Shri Babu Lal Meena was in cash and cheques mentioned in the sale deed were seized during search. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/source of investment in property and the presence of cheques in his possession. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- is confirmed 5.4 The fifth Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained receipts amounting to Rs 15,51,21,448/- in the hands of the appellant by holding that Sh. Ramji Lal Meena is benamidar of the appellant. The AO has observed that properties purchased in the name of Sh. Ram Singh Meena, Benamidar of Shree Ram Om Group from Sh, Ram Dhan Meena and Sh. Ramji Lal Meena Benamidars of appellant and directly from the sellers, is based on the seized material and summary statements of the expenditure incurred for procurement of 61 bigha of land. The total sale consideration of the transactions comes to Rs. 10,75,40,000+ Ra, 17,61,160/ - Rs.10,93,01,160/- along, with stamp duty paid by Ramji Lal as a benamidar of the appellant to Sh. Ram Singh Meena as a benamidar of SORG for the FY 2012-13 & Rs. 4,20,00,000 + 38,20,288 Rs. 4,58,20,288/- total sale of amount along with stamp duty paid by Sh. Ramji Lal as a benamidar of appellant to Om Shree Ram Infra Real Pvt. Ltd, and remained unexplained in the case of the appellant. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information to rebut the finding of the AO. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made 14 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR by the AD. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 15,51,21,448/- is confirmed. 5.5 The sixth Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment made in flat in the name of Sh. Mridul Sisodiya amounting to Rs 1,63,00,000/ The AO has on the basis of seized material held that a flat was purchased in the name of Sh. Mridul Sisodiya from Sh. Sushil Mantri resident of P-25, Prince Cap Street, Kolkata, situated at P-12, Sahdev Marg, C-Scheme, Goverdhan Kripa, Flat No. 401, Jaipur. The AO noticed that the transaction was executed at the cost of Rs. 1,63,00,000/- on 30.06.2012. As per sale deed, AO noticed that the appellant had paid of Rs. 21,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 1,42,00,000/- will be paid as per sale deed for which the source of investment was not explained. Event during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has failed to furnish the source of investment in the purchase of the said property in the name of his son Sh. Mridul Sisodiya. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Ra. 1,63,00,000/- is confirmed. 5.6 The seventh Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment in benami properties amounting to Rs. 14,40,18,978/- The AO has held on the basis of seized material and information received from Benami Prohibition Unit, Jaipur, that various agriculture lands were purchased in the name of Sh. Ramji Lal Meena, whose statement was also recorded wherein he denied having purchased any such agriculture land. The said statement was confronted to the appellant but the appellant choose not to respond. In absence of any information/submissions of the appellant the Investment of Rs. 14,40,18,978/- in purchase of benami property i.e. agriculture land in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meenaduring the year under consideration remained unexplained in the hands of the appellant. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/source of investment in the purchase of agricultural land, held to be a benami transaction of the appellant. Hased on whatever material is available on file,I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 14,40,18,978/- is confirmed. 5.7 The eighth Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment in agriculture land amounting to Rs. 2,18,00,000/- in 15 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR the name Shri Ram Dhan Meena, benamidar of the appellant. The AO has, on the basis of information available with the Department held that the appellant had made investment in immovable property in the year under consideration. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/source of investment in the property. Based on whatever material is available in file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- is confirmed 5.8 The ninth Ground of Appeal is with respect to the addition on a/c of unexplained investment in agriculture land amounting to Rs. 6,08,90,702/-in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena and Smt. Sita Devi Meena as a benamidar. The AO has held that the appellant has purchased various properties in the name of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena & Smt. Sita Devi as a special power of attorney holder and payments were made from the bank account of Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, who is held as a benamidar of the appellant in the terms of Prohibition of Benami Properties Transaction Act 1988. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/source of investment in the property u/s 69 of the Act. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected and the addition of Rs. 6,08,90,702/- is confirmed 5.9 The tenth Ground of Appeal is with respect to involving the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the Act. All the additions made by the AO are based on the seized material, invoking the provisions of Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B and therefore the Provisions of Section 115BBE(1) are clearly applicable. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the application of Section 115BBJ (1) for charging of tax on deductions made by the AO.This Ground of appeal is rejected.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the assessee has undergone heart surgery who was advised bed rest by the doctors and 16 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR it was the main reason for non-compliance before the lower authorities. In light of these reasons he prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/ submissions before the AO in the interest of equity and justice. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic and unserious to pursue his case and thus the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench observed from the bunch of appeals of the assessee that the assessee was lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case in spite of providing various opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO as mentioned in their orders. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several opportunities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non- cooperative and negligent in pursuing his case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appeals of the assessee and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the AO for proof and thus the appeals of the assessee are 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 17 ITA NO. 110/JP/2023 RAM KRIPAL SISODIA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Thus the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by A.O. independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 /06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26 /06/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.110/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, Asstt. Registrar
Other Referred Cases
UOI vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, PBPT Act, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026