AI Insights
The case involves Pappu Jaiswal, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Jaipur, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Delhi. The dispute centered on the assessment year 2012-13, where the ITO made several additions to Jaiswal's income, citing unexplained cash deposits, investments in immovable properties, and underreported contract receipts. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading Jaiswal to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence to support the additions, leading to a favorable decision for Jaiswal.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126432 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
24-04-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Judgement Text
" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 281/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sh. Pappu Jaiswal Plot No. B-60 A, Mitra Vihar Colony Panchawala, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGOPJ9097Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. B. Natani, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM On being aggrieved by the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 12/10/2023 [ for short CIT(A)] the captioned assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 05.12.2019 2 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144 in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 unlawfully. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliances of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required to be decided on the basis of facts on record. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144 on 05.12.2019 in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 unlawfully on 29.03.2019. 4. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order of the learned AO in making additions under section 68 of Rs. 12,31,000/-, and under section 69 of Rs. 9,60,750/- 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO in making additions of Rs, 2,87,250/- applying N P rate of 15% on contract receipts of Rs. 19,15,000/- 6. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO without providing adequate opportunity. 7. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of appeal before the final hearing is completed. 3 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 423 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Re – Condo-nation of delay in filing of an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur In the case of shri Pappu Jayaswal, B-60A, Mitra Vihar Colony, Panchayawala Sirsi Road, Jaipur 302021—Request Regarding Assessment year 2012-2013 PAN: AGOPJ9097Q Hon’ble Members The appellant assessee is an individual. In the above regard it is submitted that in the case of the assessee assessment order was passed on 05.12.2019 under section 144/147 assessing total income at Rs, 24,79,000/- as against returned income of Rs. 2,35,020/-. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 23.01.2020. However the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 12.10.2023. The appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) on 12.10.2023 was served online on ITBA Portal on 12.10.2023 which came into the knowledge of the assessee in January-2025 as the old counsel of the assessee has not informed about the passing of the order and he has also not filed any reply before the CIT(A). The assessee was not aware and has no knowledge for receiving of the hearing notices from CIT(A). In the above regard it is submitted that the assessee did not receive the order of the learned CIT(A). Further assessee is not accustomed to watch email as such being non conversant with the electronic gadgets. The assessee failed to watch any communication from the learned CIT(A). Further the fact of dismissal of appeal by the learned CIT(A) came to the notice of the assesee only on receipt of penalty notice dated 09.01.2025. Soon after that assessee contacted a new chartered Accountant and has now filed appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. An Affidavit is being filed to the effect of the afore said facts. Therefore, the assessee has no knowledge regarding issue of hearing notices as well as passing of ex-parte order on 12.10.2023 by the learned CIT(A). There is 4 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO delay of 441 days which is bonafide and non-intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee is very poor and non admission of appeal shall result in financial chaos to the asseseee. Considering the aforesaid facts the Hon'ble I.T.A.T is humbly requested to consider the fact sympathetically and to take mercy upon the assessee and admit the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal-Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by A0 for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal -Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94-A0 passed order allowing claim under that section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97 Rectification application was rejected by A0-CIT(A) upheld order of A0-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal magainst order of CIT(A)_Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility for delay on Revenue-Tribunal dismissed two appeals filed by assessee holding that same as barred by limitation-Tribunal held that delay of 2984 days in filling appeal could not be condoned Held,Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others held that legal advice tendered by a professional and litigant acting upon it one way or other could be sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay can be condoned-None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by fact that delay of 2984 days was incapable of condonation--In process Tribunal went about blaming assessee and professionals and equally Department-Tribunal's order did not meet requirement set out in law--Tribunal completely misdirected itself and had taken into account factors, tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand-Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay--Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation , High Court could not arrive at conclusion that assessee was at fault, he intentionally and deliberately delayed matter and had no bona fide or reasonable explanation for delay in filing 5 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO proceedings--High Court condoned delay of 2984 days in filing appeals- Assessee's Appeals allowed. (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that \"condonation of delay- reasonable cause - delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal\". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. The Appellant, local authority, acquired land belonging to one of the Respondents for a development scheme in 1988. As the Appellant did not pay the compensation amount despite notice, the property was auctioned and sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidder in 1992. The bidder deposited the sale proceeds. The Appellant then \"woke up from its slumber\" and filed objections before the Single Judge for setting aside the auction sale. Even in these proceedings, the Appellant did not appear and the same were dismissed for non-appearance. The sale deed was executed in favour of the highest bidder. The Appellant then filed an appeal before the District Judge which was barred by limitation by a couple of months. This appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Onmistaken advice, the Appellant filed a second appeal to the High Court which was thereafter treated by the Court as a revision application. This was alsodismissed. The Appellant then filed a review petition which was also dismissed. Against that the Appellant filed a SLP which was also delayed. The delay in filing the SLP was condoned and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait-jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds 6 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter; (b) Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; (c) Unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties; v) Naveen kishore Mehnot Vs ITO (2023) 152 Taxmann.com 658 (mum-Trib) The assessment of the assessee was completed against which the assessee had filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeals) on 02.01.2019 which was decided by commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 01.01.2022. The afore said order was passed ex party by the commissioner (Appeals) which was not received by the assessee and he came to know about the same when a show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) from the department was issued. Thereafter, the assessee appointed a Chartered Accountant and filed an instant appeal which was delayed on that account . Since the delay caused was not due to any neglect but due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, he filed an application for condoning the delay in filing instant appeal. Held, in view of the decision in the case of Midas polymer compounds (p.) Limited Vs. CIT [(IT Appeal No. 288 (Coch.) of 2017, dated 25.06.2018] , delay was to be condoned and appeal was to be admitted for adjudication. In the circumstances it is submitted that it was because of the bonafide delay due to unseen circumstances. The appeal could not be filed in time. It is submitted that for something which happened due to inadvertence and beyond the control. 7 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO Hence it is the prayer of the assessee as well as of the counsel that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to the contention raised for delay in filing the appeal but at the same time did not controvert to the facts mentioned in the application and affidavit so filed. He also left the decision to the wisdom of bench in the matter. 5. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that the reasons advanced for exparte before the ld. CIT(A) was persisting and that is why there was delay in filling the present appeal. As the contention raised were not challenged by the ld. DR we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reason. Therefore, the prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 423 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 423 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 8 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that ld. AO noted that the assessee has not filed his return of income. In this case, as per AIR information uploaded by DIT(I&CI), Jaipur, it is noticed that the assessee has cash deposited of Rs. 12,31,000/-, purchased an immovable property of Rs. 9,15,000/-on which stamp duty paid of Rs. 45,750/-, received contract receipts of Rs. 19,15,000/- during F.Y 2011-12. Therefore, after recording valid reasons and taking prior approval from the Pr. CIT-I, Jaipur vide letter no. 2134 dated 29.03.2019, conveyed by the Addl. CIT vide letter no. 4323 dated 29.03.2019 notice u/s 148 issued in case of assessee on 29.03.2018 which has been duly served through registered post. In response, no return has been filed by the assessee. Notices 142(1) was issued on 22.08.2019 fixing date of hearing on 28.08.2019 but no compliance has been made. Again, notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act issued on 11.11.2019 fixing the date of hearing on 18.11.2019 but no compliance has been made. Notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act has again issued on 18.11.2019 fixing the date of hearing on 25.11.2019 but no compliance has been made on the given date. 6.1 In the assessment proceeding the assessee vide submission dated 03.12.2019 submitted computation of income and bank statement, he also 9 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO contended that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction work and sale/purchase of residential plot/ house, and filed return for this assessment year in accordance with the provision of section 44AD of the Act. Assessee is filing return of income regularly. As is evident from the record that the assessee has three bank accounts during the year under consideration and the same were placed on record. The assessee contended that the deposit of cash in the bank account reflects the business receipts which is received in cash and any immovable property transaction is related to business activity. 6.2 Against that reply to ld. AO, he noted so far as to the contention that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction work but the assessee has not produced evidence to this effect. The assessee has not produced any details of sale and purchase of residential plots/houses and of construction work. Secondly, the assessee has stated that cash deposit in bank accounts out of business receipt, which is received in cash, and any immovable property transaction is related to business. However, the assessee has not produced any details that which property sold in the year under consideration and not produced the source of cash deposit. Only written submission is not enough to prove that the cash deposited in bank 10 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO accounts is out of business receipts corroborative evidence must be produced to this effect. Since the assessee has not produced any evidence regarding the source of cash deposit of Rs. 12,31,000/- and regarding Rs. 9,60,750/- (purchase consideration of Rs. 9,15,000+ Stamp duty expenses of Rs. 45,750) investing in purchase of property even various opportunities have been provided to the assessee. Only filing of computation u/s 44AD of IT Act is not enough to prove that the assessee is doing business of sale/ purchase of residential land/ plot and engaged in construction work. The assessee has not filed any details regarding the sale/ purchase of residential plot/ house and construction work. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 12,31,000/- was made on account of cash deposit in bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act and an addition of Rs. 9,60,750/-(purchase consideration of Rs. 9,15,000+ Stamp duty expenses of Rs. 45,750) was made on account of investment in immovable property u/s 69 of IT Act. Ld. AO also noted that the assessee has received contract receipts of Rs. 19,15,000/-during F.Y 2011-12. The assessee has not produced any details from whom the receipts was received and what work done by the assessee. In absence to any details, it is reasonable to disallow 15% of total contract receipt of Rs. 19,15,000/-that comes to Rs. 2,87,250/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 11 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 2,87,250/- was made and added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, total income of the assessee was computed as under : Add: Unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of IT Act Rs. 12,31,000/- Add: Unexplained investment u/s 69 of IT Act Rs. 9,60,750/- Add: Addition on account of contract receipt Rs. 2,87,250/- Total Income Rs. 24,79,000/- 7. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “The present filed appeal is directed against order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred as ‘Act’), issued by AO on 05.12.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Aggrieved with the order issued by the AO, the appellant has filed present appeal on 23.01.2020. In the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that the appellant was issued and served various notices u/s 250 of the Act from this office to present his contentions and any documents supporting them. The said notices were issued right from 2020 through till 2023 and all of them (3 in number) remain un-complied with. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFaC) also in November, 2022 enabled communication window to facilitate filing of submissions by the appellant but to no avail. 3. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal because there has been no response as yet. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.” 12 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 8. As is evident that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) since the assessee has availed any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and remained non-compliant. Thus, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). As regards the non compliance before ld. CIT(A) the assessee repeated the same contention as it was for delay in bringing the present appeal. In support of the grounds of appeal raised the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submissions in respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below: The assessee is an Individual. During the year the assessee derived income from contract receipts. Return of income was filed on 27.12.2013 disclosing income of Rs. 2,35,020/- , a copy of acknowledgement of return along-with computation of total income and form 26 AS is available on paper book page No 1 to 9. Subsequently the learned AO issued notice under section 148 on 29.03.2019. The assessment has been completed under section 144 on 05.12.2019 determining total income at Rs, 24,79,000/- as against retuned income of Rs. 2,35,020/-. The additions made by the learned AO are as under- S No. Particulars Amount 1 Unexplained Cash deposit in Bank u/s 68 of the IT Act 12,31,000.00 2 Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act in the purchase of immovable property 9,60,750.00 3 Additions on account of contract receipt by applying N P rate of 15% 2,87,250.00 Total 24,79,250.00 Aggrieved with the order passed by the lead AO the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). However the learned CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 12.10.2023. Further during the course of pendency of appeal before the learned CIT(A) the asseseee had requested the learned AO, ITO ward 2 (2) vide letter dated 13 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 14.10.2021 to furnish copy of sanction letter under section 151 by the specified authority approving the recording of reasons. However the learned AO till date failed to furnish the required information. Copy of letter dated 14.10.2021 is available on paper book page NO…24. The learned AO did not furnish information taking the excuse that the relevant records are not available/traceable. . Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee has come before the Hon’ble Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal discussed hereunder. The appeal filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal is late by 441 days. The assessee has separately moved an application for condo-nation of delay along with affidavit to this effect. The appeal could not be filed in time as the assessee came to know of the order of CIT(A) only on getting a penalty notice on 09.01.2025. The assessee is non matriculate and is not aware about the intricacies of the income Tax. It is submitted that by not filing an appeal in time the assessee was not a gainer as such no malafide can be attributed. The assessee being a very small time taxpayer pleads for mercy in condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required to be decided on the basis of facts on record 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144 on 05.12.2019 in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 unlawfully on 29.03.2018. 3. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order of the learned AO in making additions under section 68 of Rs. 12,31,000/-, and under section 69 of Rs. 9,60,750/- 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO in making additions of Rs, 2,87,250/- applying N P rate of 15% on contract receipts of Rs. 19,15,000/- 14 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 5. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO without providing adequate opportunity. 6. That the appellant craves to add/alter/amend the Grounds of appeal before the final hearing is completed Ground No. 1 That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him, whereas the appeal required to be decided on the basis of facts on record. In the above regard it is submitted that justice has not been done to the assessee not only by the learned AO, who has passed assessment order under section 144 for no reasons but the assessment order passed under section 144 being illegal could not have been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground that assessee failed to make compliance of the notices issued to him. However it is submitted that in any case it was incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to have passed the order not simply on the basis of non compliance on the part of the assessee but he should have considered facts on record. Having not done so, the learned CIT(A) has passed the order which is not in accordance with law. In this case the learned AO has made additions of Rs. 12,31,000/- on the ground that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank account. No details have been given of these cash deposit of Rs. 12,31,000/- such as date of deposit and the relevant bank account. The learned AO had made additions of Rs. 9,60,750/- on the ground that assessee has purchased immovable property for a sum of Rs, 9,15,000/- and incurred stamp duty expenses of Rs. 45,750/-. Total investment Rs. 9,60,750/-. While making additions it was incumbent upon the leaned AO and also a duty was cast upon him to stipulate the following. A Particulars of property purchased by the assessee. B date of purchase of property C name of the person from whom the property was purchased D mode of payment of the consideration 15 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO It is unfortunate that none of the above details have been mentioned by the learned AO in the assessment order. It appears that the learned AO has acted without obtaining verified facts. He has followed the information received from I & C I as a thumb rule. The entire addition made by the learned AO is illegal unlawful and unjust. During the year under consideration the asessee has purchased following two properties A land at Plot NO. 223 Ganesh vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur for a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- + stamp duty expenses of Rs. 13,460/- totaling to Rs, 2,54,460/- the amount have been paid by the assessee in cash on 20.04.2011. The assessee has withdrawn cash from Central Bank of India of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 7.4.2011 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.04.2011 for purchase of the afore said property . Copy of purchase deed is available on paper book page No 25 to 32. Copy of the bank account is enclosed from ready reference and the same is available on paper gook page No.14 to 17.. Thus the source of purchase of this property is fully explained. B Land at plot no. 72 at Ganesh vihar, sirsi road, jaipur on 16.01.2012 from Shri Gopal singh for a total consideration of Rs, 9,15,000/- + stamp duty of Rs. 35,470/- totaling to Rs. 960,470/-. The source of investment is as under Rs. 7,00,000/- by cheque drawn on Central Bank of India dated 28.12.2011 Rs. 50,000/- by cash on 28.12.2011 Rs. 1,65,000/- by cash on 16.01.2012 ============= Rs. 9,15,000/- Total ============= Regarding availability of cash the assessee is furnishing a cash flow statement which discloses that assessee was having sufficient funds in hand. The major source is Rs. 2,51,000/- received on 12.12.2011 on sale of property which is the trade of the assessee. Copy of bank account reflecting withdrawl of Rs. 7,00,000/- is available on paper book page No. 14 to 17. Copy of cash flow statement is produced below. Copy of purchase deed is available on paper book page No 45 to 54. Copy of bank account is available on paper book page No 10 to 23. .in view of the above the source of Rs. 9,15,000/- is fully explained Cash flow statement 16 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO S NO, Date name of Bank opening balance Withdrawals from Bank deposits in bank paid for purchase of property Closing Balance 1 01.04.2011 151000.00 151000.00 2 04.04.2011 C B I 151000.00 50000.00 201000.00 3 05.04.2011 C B I 201000.00 1500.00 199500.00 4 07.04.2011 C B I 199500.00 100000.00 299500.00 5 13.04.2011 C B I 299500.00 500000.00 799500.00 6 20.04.2011 C B I 799500.00 200000.00 999500.00 7 20.04.2011 property 999500.00 241000.00 758500.00 8 23.04.2011 C B I 758500.00 20000.00 778500.00 9 27.04.2011 S B B J 778500.00 10000.00 768500.00 10 03.05.2011 C B I 768500.00 500000.00 1268500.00 11 12.05.2011 C B I 1268500.00 10000.00 1278500.00 12 13.05.2011 C B I 1278500.00 20000.00 1298500.00 13 26.05.2011 S B B J 1298500.00 5000.00 1293500.00 14 03.06.2011 C B I 1293500.00 100000.00 1393500.00 15 06.06.2011 C B I 1393500.00 3000.00 1390500.00 16 10.06.2011 C B I 1390500.00 5000.00 1395500.00 17 10.06.2011 C B I 1395500.00 5000.00 1400500.00 18 13.06.2011 C B I 1400500.00 50000.00 1450500.00 19 17.06.2011 C B I 1450500.00 50000.00 1400500.00 20 22.06.2011 C B I 1400500.00 10000.00 1410500.00 21 27.06.2011 C B I 1410500.00 5000.00 1415500.00 22 08.07.2011 C B I 1415500.00 1500.00 1414000.00 23 18.07.2011 C B I 1414000.00 30000.00 1444000.00 24 18.07.2011 C B I 1444000.00 25000.00 1469000.00 25 20.07.2011 C B I 1469000.00 20000.00 1489000.00 26 20.07.2011 S B B J 1489000.00 5000.00 1494000.00 27 08.08.2011 C B I 1494000.00 1500.00 1492500.00 28 11.08.2011 C B I 1492500.00 50000.00 1442500.00 29 17.08.2011 C B I 1442500.00 20000.00 1462500.00 30 01.09.2011 C B I 1462500.00 10000.00 1472500.00 31 01.09.2011 C B I 1472500.00 25000.00 1497500.00 32 02.09.2011 S B B J 1497500.00 40000.00 1537500.00 33 05.09.2011 C B I 1537500.00 50000.00 1587500.00 34 07.09.2011 C B I 1587500.00 10000.00 1597500.00 35 10.09.2011 S B B J 1597500.00 10000.00 1607500.00 36 19.09.2011 C B I 1607500.00 10000.00 1617500.00 37 21.09.2011 C B I 1617500.00 30000.00 1647500.00 38 23.09.2011 C B I 1647500.00 15000.00 1662500.00 17 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 39 01.10.2011 S B B J 1662500.00 25000.00 1637500.00 40 01.10.2011 C B I 1637500.00 25000.00 1662500.00 41 04.10.2011 C B I 1662500.00 10000.00 1672500.00 42 05.10.2011 C B I 1672500.00 10000.00 1682500.00 43 14.10.2011 C B I 1682500.00 30000.00 1652500.00 44 18.10.2011 C B I 1652500.00 15000.00 1667500.00 45 28.11.2011 C B I 1667500.00 30000.00 1697500.00 46 29.11.2011 C B I 1697500.00 500000.00 1197500.00 47 30.11.2011 ICICI 1197500.00 500000.00 697500.00 48 10.12.2011 C B I 697500.00 10000.00 707500.00 49 12.12.2011 property 707500.00 251000.00 958500.00 50 15.12.2011 C B I 958500.00 20000.00 978500.00 51 16.12.2011 C B I 978500.00 40000.00 1018500.00 52 28.12.2011 property 1018500.00 50000.00 968500.00 53 14.01.2012 S B B J 968500.00 2000.00 970500.00 54 16.01.2012 S B B J 970500.00 5000.00 975500.00 55 16.01.2012 property 975500.00 165000.00 810500.00 56 20.01.2012 S B B J 810500.00 5000.00 815500.00 57 25.01.2012 S B B J 815500.00 10000.00 825500.00 58 26.01.2012 S B B J 825500.00 10000.00 835500.00 59 27.01.2012 S B B J 835500.00 2000.00 837500.00 60 08.02.2012 S B B J 837500.00 30000.00 867500.00 61 08.02.2012 C B I 867500.00 5000.00 862500.00 62 13.02.2012 C B I 862500.00 50000.00 812500.00 63 18.02.2012 S B B J 812500.00 10000.00 822500.00 64 12.03.2012 S B B J 822500.00 40000.00 782500.00 65 12.03.2012 S B B J 782500.00 10000.00 792500.00 66 12.03.2012 S B B J 792500.00 10000.00 802500.00 67 12.03.2012 S B B J 802500.00 5000.00 807500.00 68 26.03.2012 S B B J 807500.00 10000.00 817500.00 2395000.00 1272500.00 456000.00 817500.00 Copies of title deeds of aforesaid properties are enclosed for verification. These facts go to establish that the learned AO was not in possession of correct facts regarding purchase of immovable properties and investment therein. The very initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 therefore was bad in law being based on incorrect facts. The Hon’ble ITAT is therefore requested to quash the assessment order and alternatively delete the addition of Rs, 9,60,750/-. Ground No. 2 18 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144 on 05.12.2019 in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 unlawfully on 29.03.2018. 1. No Approval under section 151 is unlawful The learned AO was requested under letter dated 14.10.2021 copy of which is available on paper book page no. cited supra to furnish copy of reason recorded as well as copy of sanction given by the specified authority under section 151 but the same has not made available to the assessee till date. In the absence of copy of sanction letter under section 151 by the specified authority, the assessment is not backed by legal sanction. The assessee submits that in the case of the assessee no sanction under section 151 from the specified authority was obtained. If there had been sanction under section 151 the same should have been provided to the assessee. Despite passing of 36 month these primary records had not been made available to the assessee. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the assessment order on this ground alone In the case of the assessee notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2019. The learned AO was suo moto required to furnish to the assessee a copy of the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 148 alongwith the copy of sanction letter obtained under section 151 from the Specified authority before completion of assessment proceedings, but the same was not provided to the assessee. In view of this the assessee could not object to the reasons recorded. Failure to furnish reasons is in direct violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Hon,ble Supreme Court had issued instruction that the reasons for issuing notice under section 148 should be provided to the assessee and before proceeding further in the assessment proceedings, the learned AO will be required to dispose the objection filed by the assessee, if any, to the issuance of notice under section 148. It is submitted that since in the case the reasons for issuing notice under section 148 were not provided, the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to raise objections against issuance of notice under section 148. Hence the entire proceedings of issuance of notice under section 148 and subsequent completion of assessment are ab-initio void. The following case laws are quoted in support i) GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) 19 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO AO has to dispose of the objection by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. ii) CIT Vs Pentafour software Employees welfare foundation (Mad) (2019) 418 ITR 0427 In our considered view, the decision arrived at in the case of Jayanthi Narayanan (supra) reflexes the correct position of law because, the procedure carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) not only binds the assessee, but also the Revenue. Filing of objections to the reasons for reopening is not an empty formality. If this is so, passing a speaking order on the objections cannot be treated as an empty formality and to be brushed aside as a procedural error. The purpose for passing a speaking order on the objections is to afford an opportunity to the assessee to question the same, in the event the assessee is aggrieved by such an order. Therefore, to state that it would be sufficient for the Assessing Officer to deal with the objections in the assessment order http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.582 to 584 of 2009 and thereafter, if the assessee is aggrieved, he can file a statutory appeal, is a proposition which would be against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, if an order violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then it has to be necessarily held to be an order without jurisdiction. The law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court is a binding character and is a source of law and to itself which will bind all authorities. iii) Kirti P Chidambaram (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Mad) Allowing the petition the Court held that , since reassessment order was passed without disposing of assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, same was unjustified. Court also held that where claim of assessee of exemption of income under section 10(1) on proceeds from sale of coffee subjected to only pulping and drying was accepted for several years and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified. (AY. 2009-10) iv) Jayanti Natrajan Vs ACIT (2018) 161 DTR 281 (Mad) S. 147: Reassessment —Natural justice -Order passed without disposing of objections raised by assessee for reopening was improper and null and void [ S. 143(2), 148 ] 20 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO Allowing the petition the Court held that , Order passed without disposing of objections raised by assessee for reopening was improper and null and void . The law laid down by the Supreme Court is of binding nature and is a source of law unto itself, which would bind on all the authorities. Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO ( 2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) lays down a law and failure to comply would render the assessment order without jurisdiction ( AY. 2009-10) v) Cenveo Publisher services India Ltd. v. UOI ( 2019) 180 DTR 244(Bom) S. 147 : Reassessment –Delay in filing objections- -If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks- A writ petition to challenge the reopening is not entertained [S.148 ] The Petitioner has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening of the assessment on 14.12.2018. Objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 28.12.2018. Since the last date for framing the assessment was fast approaching and the assessment would get time barred on 31stDecember, 2018, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 28.12.2018. The Petitioner has approached the Court challenging very notice of reopening of the assessment and also including the challenge to the order of reassessment as consequential to the main challenge to reopening of the assessment. Dismissing the petition the Court held that reasons for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was supplied to the assesee on 14.9.2018. Without filing the objection the assessee approached the Court by filing the Writ Petition in November, 2018 After withdrawing the petition on 13 - 11-2018 the objection was filed on 14-12-2018 .Dismissing the petition , considering the facts of the case the Court held that ; if the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. Accordingly the writ petition was not entertained . ( WP No. 284 of 2019, dt. 01.02.2019)(AY.2011- 12. Ground NO. 3 21 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in virtually confirming the order of the learned AO in making additions under section 68 of Rs. 12,31,000/-, and under section 69 of Rs. 9,60,750/- In the above regard it is submitted that learned AO has made addition of Rs. 12,31,000/- under section 68 on account of deposits in bank. It is the case of the learned AO that the assessee failed to furnish any source of deposits of Rs. 12,31,000/- in the bank account. In this regard it is submitted that position of withdrawal from bank account and deposit in bank account is reflected in the cash flow statement is as under Cash flow statement S NO, Date name of Bank opening balance Withdrawls from Bank depsoits in bank paid for purchase of property Closing Balance 1 01.04.2011 151000.00 151000.00 2 04.04.2011 C B I 151000.00 50000.00 201000.00 3 05.04.2011 C B I 201000.00 1500.00 199500.00 4 07.04.2011 C B I 199500.00 100000.00 299500.00 5 13.04.2011 C B I 299500.00 500000.00 799500.00 6 20.04.2011 C B I 799500.00 200000.00 999500.00 7 20.04.2011 property 999500.00 241000.00 758500.00 8 23.04.2011 C B I 758500.00 20000.00 778500.00 9 27.04.2011 S B B J 778500.00 10000.00 768500.00 10 03.05.2011 C B I 768500.00 500000.00 1268500.00 11 12.05.2011 C B I 1268500.00 10000.00 1278500.00 12 13.05.2011 C B I 1278500.00 20000.00 1298500.00 13 26.05.2011 S B B J 1298500.00 5000.00 1293500.00 14 03.06.2011 C B I 1293500.00 100000.00 1393500.00 15 06.06.2011 C B I 1393500.00 3000.00 1390500.00 16 10.06.2011 C B I 1390500.00 5000.00 1395500.00 17 10.06.2011 C B I 1395500.00 5000.00 1400500.00 18 13.06.2011 C B I 1400500.00 50000.00 1450500.00 19 17.06.2011 C B I 1450500.00 50000.00 1400500.00 20 22.06.2011 C B I 1400500.00 10000.00 1410500.00 21 27.06.2011 C B I 1410500.00 5000.00 1415500.00 22 08.07.2011 C B I 1415500.00 1500.00 1414000.00 23 18.07.2011 C B I 1414000.00 30000.00 1444000.00 24 18.07.2011 C B I 1444000.00 25000.00 1469000.00 22 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 25 20.07.2011 C B I 1469000.00 20000.00 1489000.00 26 20.07.2011 S B B J 1489000.00 5000.00 1494000.00 27 08.08.2011 C B I 1494000.00 1500.00 1492500.00 28 11.08.2011 C B I 1492500.00 50000.00 1442500.00 29 17.08.2011 C B I 1442500.00 20000.00 1462500.00 30 01.09.2011 C B I 1462500.00 10000.00 1472500.00 31 01.09.2011 C B I 1472500.00 25000.00 1497500.00 32 02.09.2011 S B B J 1497500.00 40000.00 1537500.00 33 05.09.2011 C B I 1537500.00 50000.00 1587500.00 34 07.09.2011 C B I 1587500.00 10000.00 1597500.00 35 10.09.2011 S B B J 1597500.00 10000.00 1607500.00 36 19.09.2011 C B I 1607500.00 10000.00 1617500.00 37 21.09.2011 C B I 1617500.00 30000.00 1647500.00 38 23.09.2011 C B I 1647500.00 15000.00 1662500.00 39 01.10.2011 S B B J 1662500.00 25000.00 1637500.00 40 01.10.2011 C B I 1637500.00 25000.00 1662500.00 41 04.10.2011 C B I 1662500.00 10000.00 1672500.00 42 05.10.2011 C B I 1672500.00 10000.00 1682500.00 43 14.10.2011 C B I 1682500.00 30000.00 1652500.00 44 18.10.2011 C B I 1652500.00 15000.00 1667500.00 45 28.11.2011 C B I 1667500.00 30000.00 1697500.00 46 29.11.2011 C B I 1697500.00 500000.00 1197500.00 47 30.11.2011 ICICI 1197500.00 500000.00 697500.00 48 10.12.2011 C B I 697500.00 10000.00 707500.00 49 12.12.2011 property 707500.00 251000.00 958500.00 50 15.12.2011 C B I 958500.00 20000.00 978500.00 51 16.12.2011 C B I 978500.00 40000.00 1018500.00 52 28.12.2011 property 1018500.00 50000.00 968500.00 53 14.01.2012 S B B J 968500.00 2000.00 970500.00 54 16.01.2012 S B B J 970500.00 5000.00 975500.00 55 16.01.2012 property 975500.00 165000.00 810500.00 56 20.01.2012 S B B J 810500.00 5000.00 815500.00 57 25.01.2012 S B B J 815500.00 10000.00 825500.00 58 26.01.2012 S B B J 825500.00 10000.00 835500.00 59 27.01.2012 S B B J 835500.00 2000.00 837500.00 60 08.02.2012 S B B J 837500.00 30000.00 867500.00 61 08.02.2012 C B I 867500.00 5000.00 862500.00 62 13.02.2012 C B I 862500.00 50000.00 812500.00 63 18.02.2012 S B B J 812500.00 10000.00 822500.00 64 12.03.2012 S B B J 822500.00 40000.00 782500.00 65 12.03.2012 S B B J 782500.00 10000.00 792500.00 23 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 66 12.03.2012 S B B J 792500.00 10000.00 802500.00 67 12.03.2012 S B B J 802500.00 5000.00 807500.00 68 26.03.2012 S B B J 807500.00 10000.00 817500.00 2395000.00 1272500.00 456000.00 817500.00 This statement shows that during the year under consideration total withdrawls from the bank accounts are Rs 21,44,000/- (Rs. 23,95,000/- – Rs. 2,51,000/-) and total deposits in bank accounts are Rs. 12,72,500/- only, meaning thereby that total withdrawls from the bank account is much more than the total deposit in the bank account. Hence the total deposit in the bank account is fully explained. The perusal of the cash flow statement reveals that the availability of cash was always there with the assessee. The source of deposits is withdrawls from bank itself and sale of property of Rs. 2,51,000/-. There is no unexplained deposit in the bank account and the additions made under section 68 deserve to be deleted. Section 68 is not applicable to the case of the assessee It is further submitted that the assessee is not maintaining any books of account, therefore provisions of section 68 are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Section 68 is applicable only where there are credits in the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore the learned AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68. The learned AO has also made additions of Rs, 9,60,750/- on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of property. As mentioned in the forgoing para the investment in property is fully explained. The facts are as under During the year under consideration the asessee has purchased following two properties A land at Plot NO. 223 Ganesh vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur for a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- + stamp duty expenses of Rs. 13,460/- totaling to Rs, 2,54,460/- the amount have been paid by the assessee in cash on 20.04.2011. The assessee has withdrawn cash from Central Bank of India of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 7.4.2011 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.04.2011 for purchase of the afore said property . Copy of the bank account is enclosed from ready reference and the same is available on 24 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO paper gook page No. 10 to 23.. Thus the source of purchase of this property is fully explained. B Land at plot no. 72 at Ganesh vihar, sirsi road, jaipur on 16.01.2012 from Shri Gopal singh for a total consideration of Rs, 9,15,000/- + stamp duty of Rs. 35,470/- totally Rs. 960,470/-. The source of investment is as under Rs. 7,00,000/- by cheque drawn on Central Bank of India dated 28.12.2011 Rs. 50,000/- by cash on 28.12.2011 Rs. 1,65,000/- by cash on 16.01.2012 ============= Rs. 9,15,000/- Total ============= Regarding availability of cash the assessee is furnishing a cash flow statement which discloses that assessee was having sufficient funds in hand. The major source is Rs. 2,51,000/- received on 12.12.2011 on sale of property which is the trade of the assessee. Copy of bank account reflecting withdrawl of Rs. 7,00,000/- is enclosed. Copy of cash flow statement has been produced in the aforesaid paras. Copy of purchase deed is available on paper book page No cited Supra. Copy of bank account is available on paper book page No cited supra. In view of the above the source of Rs. 9,15,000/- is fully explained Copies of title deeds of aforesaid properties are enclosed for verification. These facts go to establish that the learned AO was not in possession of correct facts regarding purchase of immovable properties and investment therein. The very initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 therefore was bad in law being based on incorrect facts. The Hon’ble ITAT is therefore requested to quash the assessment order and alternatively delete the addition of Rs, 9,60,750 In view of the position the additions made under section 69C is unlawful, illegal and deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO in making additions of Rs, 2,87,250/- applying N P rate of 15% on contract receipts of Rs. 19,15,000/- It is submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of purchase of small pieces of land, develop the same and sales it after constructing small house(s). 25 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO During the year under consideration the total receipt disclosed by the assessee in the return of income is Rs. 34,90,750/- . The assessee applied 8% of N P rate w r to section 44AD and disclosed income of Rs. 2,79,260/- and paid taxes thereon. The NP rate disclosed by the assessee is as per norms and in accordance with the provisions of income tax Act. The learned AO has wrongly applied N P rate of 15% without any ground. The additions made by the learned AO of Rs. 2,87,250/- is illegal unlawful and wrong. The assessee has already disclosed profit of Rs. 2,79,260/- in the return of income filed on…27.12.2013. Copy of return of income is available on paper book page No 1…to 5. it is further submitted that while completing the assessment the learned AO has ignored the return of income filed by the assesseee, otherwise there would have been no occasion for making additions for Rs. 2,87,250/-. The assessee disclosed gross receipt of Rs. 34,90,750/- as against lesser receipts taken by the learned AO at Rs. 19,15,000/-. The learned AO has erred in applying N P rate of 15% without any basis or any comparable case. The assessee had already disclosed profit of Rs, 279260/- in the return of income by applying 8 % of N P rate. These facts have remained unconsidered by the learned AO. The addition made by the learned AO is apparently misplaced and deserved to be deleted. These facts make it evident that the learned AO was not in possession of correct facts in respect of gross receipt also, as also in respect of investment in immovable property. The proceedings under section 148 were therefore based on wrong facts and hence deserve to be quashed. On the basis of these facts the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the assessment order and alternately delete the additions of Rs, 2,87,250/-. Benefit of telescoping not allowed It is further submitted that the learned AO has made additions both on account of receipt as well as on account of expenditure. While doing so it was incumbent upon the learned AO to have given benefit of income against expenditure. The assessee has disclosed income of Rs. 2,79,260/- from contractual receipt/sales of residential house. Setting off this income should have been allowed against addition on account of purchaser of property. This submission is being made as a matter of abundant caution otherwise the investment in the purchase of property/deposit in bank fully stand explained individually. The assessee considers it relevant to submit that the learned AO has passed the order in haste. He has mentioned at first line, that no return of income was filed, whereas return stood filed on 27.02.2013 disclosing income of Rs. 2,35,020/-. Thus the assessment order contains wrong facts which vitiate the same. In view 26 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO of this the Hon’ble ITAT is humbly requested to delete all the additions made in this case. 9. In addition to the above written submission, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that ; It is submitted that during the course of hearing on 16.04.2025 the assessee was required to furnish a statement showing the peak of gross receipts in the bank account during the year under consideration. In this regard, as already been submitted that the assessee was having bank account with three banks. It is submitted that the assessee is furnishing a statement showing bank wise/date wise details of receipts. The perusal of the statement reveals that the gross receipt (other than cash, as cash is deposited out of previous withdrawls from banks itself, Cash flow statement has already been furnished in the submission furnished on 09.04.2025) for the year in all the three banks comes to Rs. 24,85,200/-. Whereas the assessee has already disclosed a gross receipt of Rs. 34,90,750/- and disclosed Net profit @ 8% (Rs. 2,79,260/-) in the return of income filed under section 44AD of the income Tax Act 1961. It is submitted that Gross receipt of Rs, 34,90,750/- disclosed by the assessee is much higher than the peak amount of Rs 24,85,200/- calculated in the chart attached herewith. 27 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 10. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records : 28 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO S No Particulars Paper book page No(s) 1 copy of acknowledgement of return along-with computation of total income and form 26AS 1 to 9 2 Copy of the bank account No. 10000147937 with state Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 10 to 13 3 Copy of the bank account No. 1834118316 with Central Bank of India 14 to 17 4 Copy of Bank account No. 23505001244 with ICICI Bank 18 to 23 5 Copy of letter dated 14.10.2021 furnished before the learned AO for obtaining sanction under section 151 24 6 Copy of purchase deed 20.04.2011 25 to 32 7 Copy of Sales deed dated 03.12.2011 33 to 44 8 Copy of purchase deed 16.01.2012 44 to 54 11. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee appeared before ld. AO but he has passed the order as per provision of section 144 of the Act. But no such notice was given by the ld. AO to proceeds to assessee the income as per provision of section 144 of the Act. The assessee has already stated that he is engaged in the business of contractor and therefore, income to be estimated based on the provision of section 44AD of the Act. In support of the contention that the turnover offered is fully explained. Ld. AO without any basis adopted rate @ 15 % whereas the same should be made applicable as per presumptive taxation provision of the Act. 12. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the 29 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO order of the ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR also submitted that the since the assessee has provided complete details the rate of profit be sustained @ 15 %. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the technical ground as well as on the merits of the dispute. The bench noted that the ld. AO made the three addition one for Rs. 12,31,000/- being the amount of cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act, second one is for Rs. 9,60,750/- made as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and third one Rs. 2,87,250/- for contract receipt and the same was considered by estimating the income @ 15 %. When the matter carried to ld. CIT(A) he has confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO as the assessee has not availed any opportunity of being heard given to the assessee. The assessee submitted that the non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) has been explained when the matter of delay is explained. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the assessee submitted all the details to ld. AO. Ld. AO has considered the contract income while estimating the profit considered the cash deposit of contract separately is not correct when the assessee has submitted all the relevant details. 30 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO Record reveals that the assessee has submitted a copy of all the three bank accounts maintained by him. The copy of bank accounts shows the withdrawal of Rs. 23,95,000/- and therefore, the separate addition of Rs. 12,31,000/- being the cash deposit out of withdrawal available with the assessee cannot be taxed and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete that addition as the same is coming from the same contract receipt for which the ld. AO estimated profit @ 15 %. As regards the estimation of profit the bench observed that the ld. AO has already appreciated the nature of business activity and while making estimation of profit @ 15 % he has not provided any basis for the same. Whereas considering the limit of the turnover of the assessee and considering the presumptive taxation scheme as per provision of section 44AD of the Act, the contract receipt is required to be charged 8 % of the receipt. Now coming to the last addition for Rs. 9,60,750/- on the ground that assessee has purchased immovable property for a sum of Rs, 9,15,000/- and incurred stamp duty expenses of Rs. 45,750/-. Total investment was for Rs. 9,60,750/-. Ld. AO made the addition for purchase of land at plot no. 72 at Ganesh vihar, sirsi road, Jaipur on 16.01.2012 from Shri Gopal Singh for a total consideration of Rs, 9,15,000/- + stamp duty of 31 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO Rs. 35,470/- totaling to Rs. 960,470/-. The source of investment as explained by the assessee was Rs. 7,00,000/- by cheque drawn on Central Bank of India dated 28.12.2011, Rs. 50,000/- by cash on 28.12.2011 and Rs. 1,65,000/- by cash on 16.01.2012. The bench noted that assessee was having the cash on hand out of the fund available with the assessee and has made withdrawal of cash for an amount of Rs. 23,95,000. Therefore, the source of cash cannot be doubted and added back as unexplained investment. So far as regards the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by an account payee cheque the bench has observed from the copy of the bank statement placed on record that the assessee was having the opening bank balance of Rs. 19,66,441/- [ paper book page 15 ] and therefore, payment of cheque which was sourced from the opening balance cannot be termed as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. Based on this observation we see no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 9,60,750/- and therefore, direct the ld. AO to delete the same. Since we have decided the appeal of the issue on merits the technical grounds raised by the assessee become academic and therefore, we would not like to deal with those grounds. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 32 ITA No. 281/JP/2025 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO Order pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/04/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 2(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 281/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "
Other Referred Cases
Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT, Just Steels vs DCIT, Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh, Naveen Kishore Mehnot Vs ITO, GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, CIT Vs Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation, Kirti P Chidambaram, Jayanti Natrajan Vs ACIT, Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd. vs. UOI
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026