DINESH KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1012/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 August 2026AY 2021-227 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's complaints and evidence of forged documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering all submitted documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a lower income, but the AO made significant additions based on export data and GST information, claiming the assessee was involved in a business under a different name. The assessee claimed his PAN was misused by unknown persons, providing evidence of police complaints and letters to authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO were justified without properly investigating the assessee's claim of identity theft and forged documents, and whether principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anand Swaroop, CIT

आदेश/ORDER

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 30.05.2025 passed by by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 23.12.2021 for the AY 2021-22 declaring

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Dinesh Kumar

total income of Rs. 2,48,710/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment on the reason that large value of exports shown in the Export Import Data and non-business return was filed by the assessee. The AO called for various details, in response, the assessee submitted that he is not doing any kind of business and no GST registration taken by him. There is no other income source, other than income filed in the ITR and there is no proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Jupiter International, which has made a turnover of Rs. 3,25,80,000/-. The assessee also submitted that he had filed a complaint before Cyber Crime police authority for misuse of so called his name and PAN no. in export sales and produced the copy of the same. However the AO was not satisfied with the above reply and based on the information received u/s. 133(6) of the Act from GST department made addition of Rs. 3,26,86,046/- other addition of Rs. 5,05,94,419/- as assessed income by passing ex-parte order.

3.

Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and before whom, assessee filed various other details and written submission. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us and raising the following Grounds of Appeal:-

1.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,05,94,420/-, instead of Rs. 2,48,710/- returned. As such Aggregate additions of Rs. 5,03,45,710/- may please be deleted.

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Dinesh Kumar

2.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the additions without considering the facts of case and by not observing the principles of natural justice.

3.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the additions without giving an adequate time to reply SCN. The Ld. AO provide time for 12 days to reply the SCN.

4.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 5,03,45,710/- without appreciating the fact that during this period he was out of country for Job and someone has forged documents and opened a firm M/s Jupitar International without knowledge and Assessee has also submitted proof of police complaint filed against unknown person for such fraud.

5.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 5,03,45,710/- without appreciating the fact that Assessee was in Dubai (UAE) from from Jan 2016 to 26th Feb 2020. Some unknown person has forged his documents and register in GST on dated 28-01-2020 and opened a firm M/s Jupitar International and opened bank account without his knowledge.

6.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on the facts and in law by mentioning in the order that Assesse did not furnish any reply till the date without appreciating the fact that assesse has already filed reply to various notices with supporting documents.

7.

That the appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or vary and/or withdraw any or all of the aforesaid grounds of Appeal or at time of hearing of the above appeal

5.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the so called firm M/s. Jupiter International was created on 29.01.2020 with forged documents namely PAN No. and Aadhar No. of the assessee.

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Dinesh Kumar

Whereas during that period, assessee was employed in UAE and his Indian passport carries the entry of 26.02.2020. Similarly the forged documents were used before the GST department with impersonation of the assessee. Copy of the photographs and forged documents placed at 35 to 37 of the paper book. Therefore, assessee filed an FIR with the Cyber Crime department on 09.02.2023 which is available at page no. 39 and 40 of the paper book. Similarly, assessee filed a forged documents and complaint copy before the PCIT-1, Jaipur on 22.02.2023 and copy marking to the ITO-1(3), Jaipur. The assessee’s complaint was verified by the Economic Offence Wing and forwarded the same to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi Zone, GST, New Delhi, for taking further necessary action by the GST department vide letter dated 13.03.2023 which is available at page no. 48 of the paper book. The Cyber Crime department also acknowledged the complaint filed by the assessee, which is available at page no. 49 and 50 of the paper book. The assessee also sent a letter to the Branch Manger of Punjab & Sindh Bank, Rohini Branch, Delhi to freeze the bank account which was fraudulently opened in the name of the assessee, which is acknowledged by the bank on 14.02.2023. Similarly, the assessee made a further representation before the Income Tax and other authorities. The assessee given all these details before Ld. CIT(A) vide e-filing acknowledgement dated 18.04.2024 which is available at page no. 81 to 84 of the paper book. However Ld. CIT(A) without considering the same held that assessee failed to file the relevant details before the Ld. CIT(A) by observing as follows:-

“x. Thus, the AO have clearly found and stated that, a notice 133(6) of the Actwas issued to Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch H-32/6, Sector-3, Rohini,

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Dinesh Kumar

Delhi for furnishing the copy of account opening form alongwith all annexures including KYC and Bank Statement. In response to notice u/s 133(6)of the Act, the Punjab & Sind Bank has submitted the copy of account opening form along with Bank Statement. On perusal the reply of the Punjab & Sind Bank, It has been noticed by the AO that, the said current bank account No.-09121100704480 was opened under the name M/s Jupiter International, under his Proprietorship. Further, the appellant assessee have neither denied this fact in his submissions nor provided any documentary evidences which may prove the findings of the Ld AO otherwise. The appellant claims that, he was out of Indiaand someone has forged or misused my PAN details in getting GST registration and in opening bank account, but then there are no such proof or evidences on record to supplement his claims or any such documents furnished to prove that, the documents were forgedtowards the said GST registration and in opening bank account etc..

xi. The appellant assessee has also not provided the bank opening form of Punjab and Sind bank in which the signatures/photographers of the account holder are attached. It clearly means that, the appellant assessee is hiding some facts from this Appellate authority and is thus not trying to come clean.

xii. In this instant case of the appellant, the assessee has failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. The appellant has not cared to file a copy of any such report/action taken report from the Police authorities/ EoW/ Cyber-crime cell/ GST Commissionerate etc. or even a basic Affidavit (notarised) to support his claims. This Appellate authority have gone through the record and based on the findings of the AO, this Appellate authority has decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case and hence based on above discussion and facts, finds the decision of the AO to be correct. The appellant's claims are mere claims unless supported by such facts or evidences etc.

In the light of above discussed facts at point no.-(1) to (xii), grossly negligent behaviour of the appellant assesse during the assessment proceedings; delay in filing of this appeal before this Appellate Authorityand not even caring to file any Affidavit (notarised) to prove his bona-fides, this Appellate authority is in the view that, the additions made by the AO (a) for Rs.52,42,339/-(@8% on the undisclosed turnover of

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Dinesh Kumar

Rs.6,55,29,240/-)made to the returned income of the assessee on account of undisclosed business income; (b) for Rs.26,06,400/-(@8% on the undisclosed turnover of Rs.3,25,80,000/-) made to the returned income of the assessee on account of undisclosed business income; (c) for Rs.3,26,86,046/- made to returned income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for Rs.98,10,924/- (@ 10% of total undisclosed turnover of Rs.9,81,09,240/-) made to returned income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are found to be correct and thus UPHELD. The grounds of the appellant no.-1 & 2 etc. are not allowed.”

6.

Per contra, Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. Ld. DR could not controvert the documents filed by the assessee both before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have considered the above submissions of the assessee and perused the materials placed on record. The lower authorities failed to consider the various complaints filed by the assessee both before the Cyber Branch, GST department and the PCIT of Income Tax Department. Without verifying the same and the alleged fabricated documents, the additions are made in the hands of the assessee. Whereas the assessee has produced all necessary documents including letter to the bank for the forged activities carried out by the third party, therefore the lower authorities are not correct in stating the assessee failed to file relevant documents before them. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of JAO to look into the various documents and details filed by the assessee and to consider the same well within the provisions of law and thereafter pass fresh assessment order. Needless to say that the

I.T.A No. 1012/JPR/2025 Page No 7 Dinesh Kumar

assessee should cooperate by filing of the required documents before the JAO and to pass fresh orders on merit.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 25/08/2026 Dhananjay K., Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, जयपुर

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →