RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,BIKANER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIKANER

ITA 607/JODH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Kumar Sharma, a small businessman engaged in the papad business, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 35,13,120/- to his income for the assessment year 2013-14. The addition was initially made by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bikaner, under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained investment in land. The assessee argued that the funds for the land purchase were from legitimate sources, including gifts from family and realization of sundry debtors, which were not considered by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance during the COVID lockdown. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence and submissions, concluded that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the sources of the funds and thus, the addition was unjustified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396687 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARNI DAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Gift
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 44AD

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.607/JODH/2024 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Rajendra Kumar Sharma Bikaner, 8/290, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334 001 PAN : CBEPS1030H vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-2()1), Bikaner-334 001 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari Respondent by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.D.R.) Date of hearing : 28/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi *in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)+ passed under 2013-14, date of order 05/12/2023. The impugned order was originated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bikaner passed under section 147 / 143(3) of the Act, date of order 20/12/2018. 2 ITA No.74 /JODH/2024 Chetan Ram Bhitu Bhimji 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The Ld.AR stated that the addition was made by the Ld.AO amount to Rs.35,13,120/- under section 69B of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), but due to Covid lock down, the assessee was not able to comply with the notice of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an order exparte and confirmed the addition amount to Rs.35,13,120/-. Further, the assessee is a small businessman and received gifts from his father, wife, brother and sister-in-law. The assessee is doing papad business and he filed the return under presumptive tax scheme under section 44AD of the Act. The return was filed and finally notice under section 148 was issued and the assessment was completed. In assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the relevant details of introduction to capital account, gift from his father, brother, wife and sister- in-law, the details of which are as follows:- Gift from father Rs.10 lakhs Gift from brother Rs. 2 lakhs Gift from Kusum (wife) Rs. 1 lakh Gift from Preti (sister in law) Rs. 1 lakh The evidence was found confirmed by supporting evidence and documents related to his father, who was a government employee in Government of Rajasthan. The copy of the evidence is duly submitted before the bench in APB pages 9 to 11 and the bank account of the father is enclosed at APB page 12. Further, the assessee had sundry debtors of Rs.19.49 lakhs outstanding as on 31/03/2012 and the money was received by the assessee before purchase of land. But the said debtors were not disclosed in the balance-sheet, so the addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee made total investment of Rs. 3 ITA No.74 /JODH/2024 Chetan Ram Bhitu Bhimji 35,13,120/- by allowing the gift from relatives, realization of sundry debtors and also from his own savings. These submissions of the assessee were rejected by the Ld.CIT()A) and confirmed he addition on account of investment in land amount to Rs. 35,13,120/-. 3. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 4. In our considered view, we find that the assessee is a small businessman and is filing the return of income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act under presumptive scheme; the assessee is not liable to maintain the books of account. So, the realization of sundry debtors is part of business, which has been realized during the time of purchase of property. The year-wise P&L Account from FYs 201-13, 2011-12, 2010-11 and 2009-10 are duly annexed in the APB pages 2 to 7. We find that the Ld.AO has not rejected the affidavit submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as the source for purchase of the property is duly with sufficient funds with gifts and from the realization of sundry debtors. So we find the said addition made by the Ld.AO is not justified. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 35,13,120/-. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.607/JODH/2024 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jodhpur, दिन ांक/Dated: 29/05/2025 Pavanan 4 ITA No.74 /JODH/2024 Chetan Ram Bhitu Bhimji opy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., जोधपुर/DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 5. ग र्ड फ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, JODHPUR "