KAMAL SINGH,BHARATPUR V. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

ITA 1106/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Kamal Singh, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed an assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment included additions of Rs. 33,06,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, attributed to cash deposits and bank transfers in the appellant's account. The appellant argued that the additions were unjust and lacked proper opportunity for explanation, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT, after considering the circumstances and the procedural lapses in communication of the notice, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal and restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778885 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Sant Kabir Mahasabha vs The CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, Sohum Charitable Trust vs CIT Exemption, Chandigarh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH MALHOTRA; THRU; EMAIL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution
• Section: 144; 142(1)

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;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1106/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Kamal Singh House No. 201, Mahadev Ka Rasta, Town Nagar, Ten Nagar, Bharatpur-321 205 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -1 Bharatpur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: FTCPS 6412 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA (Thru: VC) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 05.03.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the order impugned dated 01/11/2019 passed under section 144 of the Income tax Act and confirmed by the Id CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary unjust, perverse, against the principle of natural justice, therefore is liable to be quashed Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR 2- BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case, assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and confirmed by the Id CIT(A) is quite wrong, unjust and illegal. 3- BECAUSE, in any view, and without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the income assessed, interest charged, penalty imposed and the assessment order passed under section 144 dated 01/11/2019 is wrong, illegal, without giving proper opportunity of being heard, hence bad in law. The Id CITIA) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Id AO. 4- BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Id Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 12,00,000.00, being the amount of Cash deposit in PNB account number 2725002100011652 ignoring the fact that cash was already withdrawn by the Appellant from Bank on 01.09.2016, source of cash deposit stood explained. The Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Id AO. 5- BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Id Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 21,06,000.00, being the amount of 'Bank transfer in PNB account number 2725002100011652 ignoring the fact that this Amount was received from M/s Shri Krishna and associates against sale and was credited in Bank Account. The Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Id AO. 6-BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Id Assessing officer erred in making total addition of Rs. 33,06,000.00 (1200000.00 + 2106000.00) under section 69A of the Act. The Id AO failed to bring any material on record to prove that the amount deposited in Bank was not recorded in Books of Account. The ingredients required to invoke provisions of section 69A do not exist in the case of Assessee. The addition made under section 69A is liable to be deleted. The Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Id AO. 7-Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the addition of Rs. 3306000.00/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer under the section 69A of the Act is bad in law and thus liable to be deleted.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 430 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR which the assessee has filed an application dated 04-08-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. 04-08-2025 ‘’Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of Appeal against the order passed by CIT (Appeals)-NFAC under section 250(6) of the Act dated 05/03/2024(ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062010554(1) Hon'ble Sir, The Applicant most respectfully beg, pray and humbly submits as under: Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC uploaded notices and order passed under section 250 of the Act on E-Portal and did not make communication of notice by any of the modes specified in section 282 of the Act. The said order was uploaded on Income Tax Portal and was not served by any of the modes specified in section 282 of the Act. This is also relevant to mention that the order uploaded by the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not being opened for a long time due to technical glitch. Finally on 15th July 2025, the Consultant of the Applicant, on login to Income Tax Portal came to know about order dated 05.03.2024 uploaded on the Portal. He advised the Applicant to file an appeal before the Honble ITAT, Jaipur. Due to the reasons mentioned above, there occurred delay in filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur. Since there is genuine reason for delay in filing of Appeal, the same may be condoned in the interest of justice. In this regard reliance is placed on the order of Honble ITAT, Division Bench, \"B\", Chandigarh in the case of Sant Kabir Mahasabha, vs The CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, ITA No. 84/CHD/2023, it has been held as under: \"5-We have heard the rival contention. Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order of the ld CIT (E) is, therefore, not sustainable in Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR the eyes of law. The same is hereby set aside with a direction to the Id CIT (E) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The Id CIT(E) will serve notice of hearing through physical mode as well through electronic mode upon the assessee.\" ITA No. The Honble ITAT, Delhi Bench G, Delhi in 1487/Del/2023 in Sohum Charitable Trust, Sector-9, Faridabad, 2431, Faridabad, Sector-7, SO Faridabad, Haryana Vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent)has held as under:- 5. We find that main grievance of the assessee is that the notice calling for certain details issued by the Id CIT(E) were uploaded only in the income tax e filing portal and the same were not sent to the assessee by email which is mandate of section 282 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee could not respond to the various notices. Considering this fact, we deemed it fit that assessee has sufficient cause in not responding to the notices issued by the ld CIT(E) and accordingly, we feel that assessee should be given one more effective opportunity to furnish the requisite details that were called for by the Id CIT(E). We find that under identical circumstances, the coordinate ITA No. 1487/Del/2023 Sohum Charitable Trustbench of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Sant Kabir Mahasbha Vs. CIT(E) in ITA No. 84/Chd/2023 dated 23.08.2023 has restored the issue to the file of id CIT(E) with a direction to serve notice of hearing through physical mode as well as through electronic mode on the assessee. Accordingly, the case is restored to the file of the Id CIT(E) for de novo adjudication in accordance with the law. Respectfully following the same, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.’’ PRAYER In view of above, having regards to the facts mentioned above, it is humbly prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, since there were \"sufficient cause\" your honors may be pleased to consider the prayer of the Applicant for condonation of delay. The facts and circumstances as mentioned above involve the question of \"substantial justice\", delay deserves to be condoned in the overall interest of justice. On the other hand, if condonation of delay being denied it would seriously undermine the cause of justice, resulting miscarriage of justice for the Appellant.’’ . Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR 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 also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding the assessee had not submitted any new evidence or explanation to justify the nature and source of credit and cash entries in the bank account and thus he upheld the action of the AO by observing at para 3.2 to 3.3 of his order as under:- ‘’3.2. Decision: I have carefully perused the submission on record. Further opportunities were given vide issue of notices u/s 250 of the Act, however, no response has been filed till date. As regards the sale bills, ledger account, P/L a/c etc filed by the applicant, no authenticity Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR is proved with respect to the party, Shri Krishna and associates Nagar, in the abserice of its full address, PAN, confirmation or bank statement. Further, the sale bills reflect amounts of Rs. 12,14,220/- dated 06.07.2016 and Rs. 9,11,400/- dated 20.07.2016 which by no way explain the transfer entries in the bank statement of Rs. 16,00,000/- on 01.09.2016 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.09.2016. There is no evidence to prove that these transfer entries are receipts on sale to Shri Krishna and associates Naga. This fact is also highlighted by the AO in the assessment order. The theory that the cash is deposited out of withdrawal also stands rejected as the applicant's bank statement clearly shows that payment of Rs. 16 lacs & Rs.5 lacs to one 'Manoj’ and not \"Self’’. Moreover, the cash book filed has no narrations and do not in any way corroborate the claim of the turnover out of any business. Since no new evidence or explanations are filed by the applicant to justify the nature and source of credit and cash entries in the bank account, I tend to uphold the action of the AO and confirm the addition of Rs.33,06,000/- 3.3 In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that lower authorities are not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.33.06 lacs for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following paper book. S.N. Description Page No. 1. Bank statement of Bank Account No.2725002100011652 held with PNB evidencing withdrawal of Rs.5.00 lacs and Rs.16.00 lacs o 01-09-2016 and deposit (bank transfer) of Rs,5.00 lac and Rs.16.00 lacs on 01-09-2016 1 2. A chart showing details of transactions 2 Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR through Bank and source of deposit 3. A certificate issued by the Managere of PNB, Bharatpur certifying details of cash deposit of Rs.12.00lacs in Bank A/c No. 2725002100011652 on 22-11-2016 and details of cash withdrawal of Rs.16.00 lacs on09-01-2016 and Rs.5.00 lacs 3 4. Copies of Invoice Rs.1214220/- and Rs.911400/- issued in favour of Shree Krishna and Associates 4-5 5. Copy of Bank statement of M/s. Shree Krishna and Associates evidencing payment of Rs.16.00 lacs andRs.5.00 lacs to the appellant on01-09-2016 6-7 6. An affidavit sworn by Mr. Manoj Kumar confirming that he had withdrawn cash Rs.16.00 las and Rs.5.00 lacs on 01-09- 2016.This amount was withdrawn from the Bank Account of Mr. Kamal Singh held with PNB on behalf of Mr. Kamal Singh and handed over the saidcash to Kamal Singh (appellant) 8-10 Further, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO so that the issue in question could be settled. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs12.00 Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR lacs during the demonetization period i.e. 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in the bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. As per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 but the assessee failed to do so. The notices were issued to the assessee u/s 142(1) by the AO requiring to prepare a true and correct return of his income but the assessee neither filed the return of income nor furnished the reply. Hence, the AO had no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of information available on record. Conclusively the AO made addition of Rs.33,06,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’12 The assessee has made cash deposit amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- and other credit entries appearing in bank account of Rs. 21,06,000/- hereby total amounting to Rs 33,06,000/- appearing in the Punjab National Bank account of the assessee in the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 remained unexplained. The assessee has not filed ITR, not declared its true income and has not paid taxes due thereon. The assessee has not responded to notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices issued during E-assessment proceedings. The assessee taled to give any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the value of credit entries, including cash deposits appearing in the Punjab National Bank Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR account is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assesee had not filed any new evidences or explanation to justify the nature and source of credit and cash entries in the bank to counter the AO’s order. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee and feels that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing 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 10 ITA NO. 1106/JPR/2025 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 14/ 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Kamal Singh, Bharatpur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -1, Bharatpur 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. 1106/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "