CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAWAT,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 496/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 July 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits, but also noted a lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file returns for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated based on information of significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a sufficient opportunity to present evidence for cash deposits, and the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated due to non-filing of returns and unexplained cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CA (Virtual), Smt. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT (Virtual)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 496 & 498/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Years – 2013-14 & 2015-16) Chandra Shekhar Kumawat Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) B-107, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Jodhpur 342001 PAN No. DKIPK 5912 E Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA (Virtual) Smt. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT (Virtual) Revenue by Date of Hearing 29 / 04 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 29 / 07 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, J.M. The aforetitled appeals have been preferred by the assessee/appellant against the order dated 15.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 u/s 147 & 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] by which appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income during the year under consideration. There were information that the assessee has made cash deposits in his bank account above Rs.

2 ITA Nos.496 & 498/Jodh/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 10,00,000/- or more, therefore, on the basis of said information proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs. 2,63,400/-. 3. In these appeals, the issues raised in the grounds of appeal by the assessee and are interrelated to each other and, therefore, these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity.

4.

The assessee has stated that the source of cash deposit in the bank account was from withdrawal during the year and opening cash balance. However, the assessee has not adduced any evidence to show that the cash deposits made in the bank accounts were sourced from opening cash in balance and from the withdrawals made during the year. In absence of the same the explanation of the assessee has not been found satisfactory. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to make his case. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant has filed any relevant and supporting documentary evidences or materials and on perusal of the submissions made by the appellant. Ld. AO also stated that no supporting documents such as copy of bank accounts statement, copy of ITR, nature of

3 ITA Nos.496 & 498/Jodh/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 payment whereby loan/gift/repayment of loan/business transaction has not been furnished. 6. On the basis of submissions and material available on record, we find that if one more opportunity provide to assessee then object of justice may be fulfilled to some extent and for this purpose we are inclined to remit back the matter to the Ld. AO with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording sufficient and meaningful opportunity to assessee/appellant and pass order as per law and simultaneously, we direct the assessee/appellant to cooperate in the proceedings. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 29/07/2026 under Rule 34(4), in accordance with the ITAT Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29/07/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS True Copy

4 ITA Nos.496 & 498/Jodh/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →