AJEET SINGH YADAV , BEHROR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

ITA 1643/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 April 2026AY 2012-20133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the assessee's contention regarding the non-receipt of notices and the disputed cash deposit, and pass a fresh assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as time-barred. The assessee claims that notices from the AO were sent to the wrong address and the assessment order was not received, leading to a best judgment assessment. The assessee also disputes the cash deposit addition, suggesting a mistaken identity.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal before the CIT(A) was rightly dismissed as time-barred, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO regarding unexplained cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 21.04.026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1643/JPR/2025 Ajeet Singh Yadav IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1643/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13)

Ajeet Singh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o Kanwar Singh Yadav Ward Behror Kalyanpura, Kankar Daupa Behror Alwar 301701 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AFAPY9173P Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 18.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.026 O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 02.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

The assessee in this appeal has contested the impugned addition made/confirmed by the lower authorities of Rs.21,63,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1643/JPR/2025 Ajeet Singh Yadav 3. At the outset, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte, best judgment assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The learned Counsel has further invited my attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding the same as barred by limitation.

The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) served the notices at some wrong address, which were not received by the assessee; therefore, the assessee could not represent his case before the AO. Even the assessment order passed by the AO was not received by the assessee. That the assessee came to know about the passing of the aforesaid assessment order only when a call for demand of tax was received. The impugned assessment order was passed on 10.12.2019, however, the said call was received in the year 2025. The assessee, therefore, moved an application for supply of the copy of the assessment order and, after receipt of the same, filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the year 2025, which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as being barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that, in fact, no such amount of Rs.21,63,000/- was even deposited in the bank account of the assessee; he has stated that it seems to be a case of mistaken identity. Even the notices of hearing by the AO were not served at the correct address of the assessee but at a different address.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1643/JPR/2025 Ajeet Singh Yadav 5. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the record, I note that it is the case of the assessee that no such cash amount was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the aforesaid contention of the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order on the issue involved in accordance with law.

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 21.04.2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 21.04.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →