LADA DEVI KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 449/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 August 2026AY 2012-20136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the contractor's affidavit confirmed receipt of payment, the assessee's bank account did not clearly show payments made to the contractor and other parties. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an illiterate agriculturist, purchased a plot and constructed a house. The house was later sold to cover construction costs. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained investment in the house construction. The CIT(A) deleted some additions but confirmed the Rs. 17,28,000/- addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of construction of the residential house was adequately explained by the assessee, and if not, whether the addition made by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA

आदेश/ORDER

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (in short referred to as “CIT”), arising out of the ex-parte reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 484 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained by way of notorized affidavit that

I.T.A No. 449/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Lada Devi Kumawat

assessee is an illiterate and a marginal agriculturist, she does not operate e-mail and has no knowledge or using income tax e-filing portal. The consultant who handle the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has not informed about the appellate order. The assessee came to know when penalty proceedings were initiated on 20.01.2026 and immediate thereafter filed the appeal, thereby delay of 484 days and requested to condone the same as the above act is neither willful or wanton. Considering the above facts, the delay of 484 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a marginal agriculturist deriving income from agriculture and animal husbandary for over 20 years and she was not filing her return of income. During the FY 2011-12, she purchased a residential plot at No. 163, Jain Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur on 13.10.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 7,80,000/-. The source of the same was savings from agriculture income of Rs. 2 lakhs, SB a/c. savings of Rs. 2,80,000/- and gift from her brother of Rs. 3 lakhs. She constructed a residential house in half portion of the plot through a contractor Shri Shankar Lal Kumawat. The double storey building, construction cost was Rs. 17,28,000/-. Due to lack of funds, the assessee did not make any payment to the contractor and it was mutually agreed by selling the residential building for payments due to civil contractor will be settled. Thus, the residential building was sold on 31.01.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 22 lakhs and the amount dues to the civil contractor was paid through banking channel.

3.1. Since the assessee is not filed her return of income, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on

I.T.A No. 449/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Lada Devi Kumawat

29.03.2018. In response, the assessee filed her return of income admitting total income of Rs. 1,74,740/-. The assessee furnished partial information before the AO, which has resulted in making addition of Rs. 2,80,000/- + 2,00,000/- as income from other sources and Rs. 17,28,000/- as investment in residential property.

4.

Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition of Rs.4,80,000/-, however confirmed the additions of Rs. 17,28,000/- by observing as follows:-

“3.4. Thirdly, the appellant was also asked to explain the source for construction of her house which amounted to Rs. 17,28,000/-. The appellant has not given any explanation and therefore, the AO added it back to the income of the appellant. During the appellate stage, the appellant has stated that although she had contracted Mr. Sankar Lal Kumawat, later on as she was unable to pay Mr. Kumawat for constructing the house, she decided to sell the house to Smt. Meenu Yadav for Rs. 22,00,000/-. She received Rs. 4,58,500/- in cash from Smt. Meenu Yadav and Rs. 17,41,500/- through cheque No. 187405. Although the cheque amount received for Rs. 17,41,000/- received on 04.02.2012 in Jaipur Nagaur Gramin Bank is reflected, there is no evidence that the appellant made payment of Rs. 17,28,000/- to Mr. Sankar Lal Kumawat. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted on face value.”

5.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed the appeal before us and raised the following Grounds of Appeal:-

1.

Ground 1-Addition of Rs. 1728000/- as unexplained investment

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of 17,28,000/- by treating the cost of construction of the residential house as unexplained investment, despite that the appellant having clearly, specifically and consistently explained the complete source of such investment during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings.

I.T.A No. 449/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Lada Devi Kumawat

That the appellant had duly demonstrated that out of the total sale consideration of ₹22,00,000/-, a sum of ₹4,58,500/- was received in cash and ₹17,41,500/- was received through banking channel in her bank account, and immediately thereafter withdrawals were made from the said bank account, clearly evidencing availability of funds for making payment to the contractor. The bank statements evidencing receipt of sale consideration and subsequent withdrawals were duly placed on record.

That the appellant had further fortified her explanation by filing an affidavit of Shri Shankar Lal Kumawat confirming that he had constructed the house for the appellant and had received the agreed consideration of 17,28,000/- out of the sale proceeds.

That once the receipt of sale consideration through banking channel is an admitted fact and the bank' statements clearly establish availability of funds, the source of payment towards construction stands fully explained.

In the absence of any material to show that the investment was made from any undisclosed or independent source, the addition made under the head of unexplained investment is wholly arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law.

That the learned CIT(A) has completely ignored the documentary evidences placed on record,, including the affidavit of the contractor and the bank statements showing receipt and withdrawal of sale proceeds, and has confirmed the addition merely on presumptions and conjectures. Such confirmation, in spite of a clear and supported explanation of source, is unsustainable in law and therefore the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the facts on record, contrary to law, and deserves to be deleted in full.

2.

Residual Ground

The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal during the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

6.

Ld. Counsel Shri P. C. Parwal appearing for the assessee submitted that an affidavit filed by the civil contractor Shri Shankar Lal Kumawat explaining that he received the consideration of Rs.

I.T.A No. 449/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Lada Devi Kumawat

17,28,000/- from the assessee being the cost of construction of the residential property. Ld. Counsel also placed on record the bank passbook of the assessee, wherein receipt of Rs. 17,41,500/- on 04.02.2012 and payments made to Shankar Lal Kumawat and various other parties. Thus, Ld. Counsel pleaded to delete the addition made on account of unexplained investment.

7.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR Mrs. Aarti Rawat appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that it is not very clear that the payments were made to the civil contractor to Shankar Lal Kumawat alone and various other parties and requested to set aside the matter back to the file of JAO for verification.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record including the paper book. The notorized affidavit filed by the civil contractor Shankar Lal Kumawat shows that he received an amount of Rs. 17,28,000/- from the assessee being the cost of construction, when the property was sold for Rs. 22 lakhs. However, on verification of the bank account of the assessee, it is not clear that the payments made to Shankar Lal Kumawat and to other persons as directed by him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of JAO to verify the payments made by the assessee to Shankar Lal Kumawat and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with provisions of law. Needless to say that the assessee should cooperate by filing of the required documents before the JAO and to pass fresh order on merit.

I.T.A No. 449/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Lada Devi Kumawat

9.

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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →