NAMIT JAIN,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1152/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Namit Jain, the appellant, challenging the order dated 14.07.2025 by the Learned CIT(A), which upheld the assessment order dated 31.05.2023. The assessment included two additions totaling Rs. 3,97,11,090 to the appellant's income for the assessment year 2016-17. The case was reopened to verify substantial credit entries, leading to the issuance of notices under sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant's failure to respond to multiple notices resulted in the upholding of the original assessment. The tribunal, after reviewing the circumstances, decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for the appellant to be given another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781585 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMIT SHARMA; LD. COUNSEL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR JhxxuXkks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oaJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1152/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Namit Jain, 1-Gha,-6, Jawahar Nagar, Sector-1, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AEXPJ0399G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Ramit Sharma, Ld.Counsel. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 29 /09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29 /09/2025 PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee-appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal, while challenging order dated 14.07.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2023-24, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed and the assessment order dated 31.05.2023 has been upheld, thereby confirming two additions of Rs. 3,97,11,090/-. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1152/JPR/2025 Namit Jain, Jaipur. 2 3. Present assessment was completed on 31.05.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B relating to the assessment year 2016-17. Prior thereto, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 23.12.2013. 4. Case was reopened in order to verify credit entries of Rs. 11,07,24,065/-, after an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 22.07.2022. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was, accordingly, issued. 5. As is available from the assessment record, objections filed by the assessee to the notice u/s 148 of the Act were decided. Ultimately, Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,64,83,020/-, by making addition of Rs. 55,81,127/- as business income and Rs. 3,41,29,963/- u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the above said assessment order, the assessee filed before Learned CIT(A) but the same was dismissed. 7. As is available from the impugned order, four notices were issued to the assessee-appellant by office of Learned CIT(A), but the appellant did not comply with any of the notices. That is how, Learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment order and dismissed the appeal. 8. We have gone through the assessment order, and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1152/JPR/2025 Namit Jain, Jaipur. 3 9. Admittedly, none of the four notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(E) was complied with by the appellant. We have noticed the issues involved. 10. Having regard to the nature of the issues involved, which led to making of two additions mentioned above, and that out of total 14 persons, to whom notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer, 11 persons did not respond to confirm or deny the transactions, claimed to have been entered by the appellant with them. 11. It may also be mentioned here that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown loans and liabilities at Rs. 3,85,54,855/-. The Assessing Officer found that in the case of 18 creditors, whose amount was less than Rs. 3,00,000/- verification was made from the loan statement, and bank statements of the assessee, which revealed that only 7 cases worth Rs. 13,75,000/- were found in the bank account statements of the assessee, but the remaining 11 cases were not found in his bank accounts. 12. The Assessing Officer also worked out 8% of the aggregate undeclared business receipt, as Rs. 55,81,127/- and treated the same as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1152/JPR/2025 Namit Jain, Jaipur. 4 13. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that certain documents received from the assessee are yet to be gone into. As noticed above, despite issuance of sufficient notices the assessee did not participate in appellate proceedings. Keeping in view the nature of the issues involved we deem it a fit case for another opportunitytothe appellant to put forth his claim on the matter for effective adjudication of the issues. Learned DR for the department has no objection to the grant of another opportunity of being heard to the assessee before Learned CIT(A). Result 14. In the given facts and circumstances, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose and the appeal before Learned CIT(A) filed by the assessee is restored to its original, for afresh decision, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. For the non compliance with notices issued by Learned CIT(A), when no explanation has been put forth before us, Assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/-. The appellant to deposit the said amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before the Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1152/JPR/2025 Namit Jain, Jaipur. 5 File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/09/2025. ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29 /09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Namit Jain, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(2), 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. 1152/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "