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

ITA 951/JPR/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Poonam Jain against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), which confirmed the additions made by the AO under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were made on the grounds of unexplained cash deposits and investments in the assessee's bank accounts and properties during the assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary explanations and documents to substantiate her claims. The ITAT, however, noted procedural lapses in the service of notices and the assessee's health issues during the relevant period, leading to the decision to restore the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782271 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169, A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kavita Chandra Vs CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 317 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2017) 248 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2017) 398 ITR 641 (Punjabi & Haryana)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 133(6); 12

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. 951/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Poonam Jain 50-A, Arjun Nagar, Durgapura Jaipur – 302 018 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -6 (2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADLPJ 8425 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA 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: 28 /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 24.05.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee The action of Id CIT (A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT(A)/NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred in not granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of Id AO/NFAC is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of case Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire reassessment order as the same is passed against the principles of natural justice. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in making addition of Rs 42,82,000 as unexplained money of the assessee The action of the Id CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs 42,82,000 made to the total income of the assessen 4 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law id CIT(ANFAC has erred in making addition of Rs 3,14,300 as unexplained investment of the assessee. The action of the Id CIT(A) is legal unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs 3,14,300/- made to the total income of the assessee 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 330 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 21-04-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’Assessment proceedings u/s 147 were completed in the case of the assessee on 31.10 2019 by making additions of Rs 45.96,300 to the total income of the assessee Against such assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(A) on 18.02.2020 which was decided ex-parte by Id. CIT(A). Thereafter, order passed by Id. CIT(A) was not perused by the assessee due to medical reasons. The assessee was ill for a very long time and due to which the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time as provided under the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR The order by Id CIT(A) was passed on 24 05.2024 and the appeal was required to be filed on or before 31.07 2024 being two months from the end of the month in which said order is passed. Under the above circumstances, the appeal filing got delayed. Due to her health condition, she was unable to take timely action against the appellate order i.e. appeal filing which caused the delay in filing the appeal. The delay may please be condoned. The present appeal is filed with delay of 330 days A humble prayer is made that there is a reasonable cause for delay. The delay is not willful. This application is supported by affidavit, in this regard.’’ The assessee has also filed an affidavit deposing therein that the impugned appellate order dated 24-05-2024 was never physically served upon her despite a clear and specific request in Form 35 to serve all notices/ orders at her registered address. She further deposed that even otherwise the online e-mails of the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect e-mail ID despite clearly mentioning ‘’[e-mail]’’ in Form 35. She further deposed that after filing of appeal on18-02-2020, hearing of the matter was fixed on 09-04-2024 (i.e. approx. more than 4 years). It was only in May 2025 that her counsel became aware of the notices uploaded in the Income Tax Portal, upon which immediate action was initiated and the impugned order was passed hastily on 24-05-2025 thereby depriving her of a Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR reasonable opportunity of being heard. She further deposed that at the relevant time when the ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 24-05-2024 then that time she was suffering from back pain and due to which she was under continuous medical treatment and advised complete bed rest by Dr. Ritu Raj Sharma, MD (Alternative Medicine) and thus she took treatment of Panchkarma in Month of May, June and July year 2024 and the delay occurred in late filing of the appeal before ITAT. Hence, the delay in late filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 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 non-receipt of the notices by the assessee at her correct e-mail address as well as her ill health, the Bench adopts the lenient view and condones the delay in late filing the appeal before ITAT. 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 that despite multiple opportunities the assessee had not discharged Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR its primary onus to prove the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank account during the appellate proceedings and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision:- 10. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and material available on record. Since the appellant has not furnished any submissions this office is proceeding to decide the case based on material available on record 10.1. The case of the appellant was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information that the appellant has deposited huge cash in the bank account and d out an immovable property during financial year 2011- 12 Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant requiting to file the ITR within the prescribed time limit. Further various notices were issued to the appellant requesting to furnish his reply on the issue of cash deposited and purchased of the immovable properly during the year under consideration. The appellant did not reply to any of the notices 10.1.1 During the assessment proceedings, statutory notices were issued to appellant to submit the documentary evidences and requested to explain the source of cash deposit in the Bank account and purchase of the immovable property When the appellant did not participate in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer collected information from the State Bank of India and the Sub- Registrar's office by issuing a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 10.1.2 On examining the bank details, it was revealed that the assessee deposited ash of Rs 7,82,000 in account number 31469610457 and Rs. 35,00,000 in account number 30872043313 both maintained with the State Bank of India Durgapura. Jaipur during the financial year 2011-12 10.1.3 Further it was also identified that the appellant purchased an immovable property situated at House No 60/01 Pratap Nagar Sanganer Jaipur on 03/11/2011 for a consideration of Rs 60,00,000 for which the assessee made a payment of Rs. 3,14,300 in cash for registry charges. The payment of Rs. 60,00,000 was made by the appellant through cheque In addition to the this property, the appellant also sold an immovable property situated at Plot No. 64. Surya Nagar. Taro Ki Koot. Tonk Road, Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR Japur, on 03/10/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 21.50 000 The assessee had purchased this property on 20/10/2010 for a consideration of Rs. 20 51.000 and incurred an expenditure of Rs 102 850 on registry and stamp charges The total cost of the immovable property was Rs 21 53,850 Therefore the transaction did not result in any capital gain on this mmovable property 10.1.4 On venfication of the details collected from the bank and the Sub Registrar's office the Assessing Officer called for ctanfication from the assessee to explain the hature and source of the cash deposits totaling Rs. 4282.000 in State Bank of India accounts and the cash payment of Rs. 3.14,300 made for registry and stamp charges of the immovable property during the year under consideration 10.1.5 During the assessment proceeding, appellant did not make any compliance. Therefore the AO passed the assessment order as ex-parte and made addition as undisclosed income of Rs. 42,82,000/- and unexplained investment of Rs. 3,14,300/- 11. In ground no 1 appellant stated that the learned A. O has erred in making addition of Rs. 45,96,300/- as undisclosed income in the hand of assessee\" On perusal of the facts of the case and assessment order, it is seen that the appellant has deposited cash amount of Rs. 42,82,000/- into two bank accounts and incurred expenses in cash of Rs. 3,14,300 on charges of registry and stamp. In this regard, no clarification and documentary evidences were submitted by the appellant to justify the source of income. 11.1 Even at the appellate stage, the appellant has not discharged its primary onus to prove the sources of cash deposits in bank account held by the appellant and incurred cash expenses. With respect to source of cash deposit, various courts have held as under Supreme Court in case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 held that \"the expression \"assessee offers no explanation' means where the assessee offers no proper reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee\" Supreme Court in case of A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) held that Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR \"The burden to prove the genuineness of cash credit lies on the taxpayer. If the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of amounts of cash received and creditworthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable of an assessable nature\" The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Kavita Chandra Vs CIT [2017] 81 taxmann. com 317 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2017) 248 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) /(2017) 398 ITR 641 (Punjabi & Haryana) has held as under:- ‘’Cash withdrawals were made for purpose of business and same was not available for redeposit and assessee was unable to link cash withdrawn from bank to cash deposit same would be held to be assessee's unexplained income.’’ 12 Based on the facts and legal positions discussed above, despite being provided with multiple opportunities, the appellant has not discharged its primary anus to prove the nature and sources of cash deposits in bank account during the appellate proceedings. Further, no explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit and unexplained investment were submitted by the appellant. Therefore, it is presumed that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal and does not having any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Therefore in absence of any documentary evidences, I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the appellant Accordingly, the ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the 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. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the assessment order, it is noted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited huge cash in the bank account and purchased the immovable property during the year under consideration. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issue to the assessee requiring her to file the ITR within the prescribed time limit and to this effect various notices were issued to the assessee but she did not reply to any of the notices. It is noted that the AO by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act collected information from State Bank of India and Sub-Registrar’s Office that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank and also purchased immovable property. On examining the bank details, it was reveal that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.7,82,000/- in a/c no. 31469610457 and Rs.35,00,000/-in a/c no. 30872- 43313 during the year under consideration and both accounts are maintained with State Bank of India, Durgapura, Jaipur. Further, it was also identified that the assessee purchased an immovable property situated at House No. 60/02, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur on 3-11-2011 for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- for which assessee made payment of Rs.3,14,300/- in cash for registry charges. The payment of Rs.60,00,000/- Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR was made by the assessee through cheque. On verification of the details collected from the Bank and Sub-Registrar’s office, the AO called for clarification from the assessee to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits totaling Rs.42,82,000/- in State Bank of India accounts and the cash payment of Rs.3,14,300/- made for registry and stamp charges of the immovable property but the assessee did not make compliance and thus the AO completed ex-parte assessment proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31-10-2019 by making addition Rs.42,82,000/- as unexplained income and addition of Rs.3,14,300 as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding that in the absence of any documentary evidence / explanation from the side of the assessee, he does not find merit in the grounds of appeal of the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee 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 Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 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. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /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:- 28 / 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt.Poonam Jain, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -6(2), 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. 951/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA NO.951/JPR/2025 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "