JITENDER SINGH RAWAT,TEHRI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 224/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 June 2026AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's regular assessment and available funds, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,87,210, allowing credit for withdrawals made in preceding years.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 11 days due to heavy rains damaging roads. The Assessing Officer added the entire cash payment of Rs. 7,82,210 for land purchase as unexplained, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the cash payment for land purchase was sufficiently explained by the assessee's past income and bank withdrawals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

For Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

1 ITA No 224/DDN/2025 Jitender Singh Rawat vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 224/DDN/2025 ( A.Y 2012-13) Vs Jitender Singh Rawat The Assistant Commission of 2-G, Vidhy Vihar, New Tehri, Income Tax, Tehri Garhwal, 249001, Tehri, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT) PAN: AIEPR6169B (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. Suraj Rawat, CA Respondent by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 11/08/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

There is a delay of 11 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee has filed application wherein stated that due to heavy rain, Assessee could not communicate with the counsel as the roads were got damaged and travelling was very difficult, therefore, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

2 ITA No 224/DDN/2025 Jitender Singh Rawat vs. ACIT 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in laches.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee has filed application wherein stated due to heavy rain, Assessee could not communicate with the counsel as the roads were got damaged and travelling was very difficult after considering the, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time before the Tribunal. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 11 days in filing the present Appeal.

6.

Brief facts of the case are that, a survey was carried out u/s 133A at the business premises of the Assessee on 01/03/2019. During the course of survey it was observed that the Assessee has purchased a piece of land for a total consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- and paid stamp duty

3 ITA No 224/DDN/2025 Jitender Singh Rawat vs. ACIT and other expenses of 82,210/-. All the payments were made in cash and since the Assessee has failed to explain the source thereof. The A.O. has treated the entire payment as unexplained and made the addition for the same. The said addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal.

7.

Since, the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee are with respect to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 7,82,210/- made him u/s 69 of the Act, therefore, they are taken together for consideration.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole contention of the Assessee that he is regularly assessed to income tax and cash payments were made out of past funds drawn from bank from time to time. As per the Ld. Assessee's Representative, the Assessee is regularly assess to tax since 2002 and therefore, sufficient funds were available making investments. Before Ld. CIT(A), Assessee had filed the details of the income offered in preceding years and accumulation of funds in the shape of capital which is available at Page No. 4 of the Appeal order. Besides this, the Assessee has also filed the details to capital account as on 31/03/2011 and 31/03/2012 which are at Page No. 5 of the Appeal order.

8.

On careful consideration of the facts and further looking to the Assessee’s status and the income declared in the preceding years, we are

4 ITA No 224/DDN/2025 Jitender Singh Rawat vs. ACIT of the considered view that the availability of cash of 782,210/- cannot be doubted more particularly when the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the credit of Rs. 2,95,000 on account of bank withdrawals made before the date of registration. Once the Assessee’s claim is partly accepted and credit to the extent of the withdrawals made during the year was allowed, we find no reason, not to allow credit of the withdrawals made in the preceding years also, accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 4,87,210/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, all the grounds of the Assessee are allowed.

9.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 05th Day of June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:05/06/2026 R. Naheed *

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →