SH. MANGAL CHAND JAT,SIKAR vs. ITO, WARD-NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1411/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2020-21)

Sh. Mangal Chand Jat Vs. ITO Dhani Bakli Ward No.23, Ward Neem Ka Thana SRI Madhopur, Sikar 332715, Rajasthan �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:BYUPJ 8100 R Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCA Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,35,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in FDR made with IDBI bank by not appreciating that the investment in FDR is only of

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat Rs.7,35,000/-, source of which is out of sale proceeds of land and past savings. He has further erred in holding that assessee has not filed application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Act ignoring that the bank statement with IDBI is part of assessment record and not an additional evidence. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in holding that cash deposit in the bank account of Rs.4,55,000/- is unexplained but confirming the addition of Rs.2,55,750/- u/s 69A of the Act since addition of Rs.2 lacs on account of FDR made out of such cash deposit is separately added by not accepting the explanation of assessee that source of cash deposit is out of the past savings. 3The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.24,438/- on account of interest on time deposit ignoring that assessee has declared higher interest on FDR of Rs.45,950/- in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and thereby resulting into double taxation of Rs.24,438/- 4The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 5 Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee’s case for the impugned year was reopened on the information available with the AO that the assessee had made time deposits in Bank to the tune of Rs.49,19,428/-, the source of which was remained unexplained. The assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings. The AO exercising his powers u/s 133(6) of the Act obtained information relating to the assessee’s bank accounts in IDBI Bank Mumbai, and he found that the assessee had made time deposits during the impugned year to the tune of Rs.16,35,000/-, and the source of the same was unexplained. Accordingly, he added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act. He further found that the assessee had received interest on time deposits of Rs.24,438/- which had not been disclosed in his income and accordingly, the said amount of interest

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO further, noted that the assessee had deposited cash in bank amounting to Rs.4,55,750/- but noting that the cash deposited of Rs.2,00,000/-, was included in the time deposits of Rs.16,35,000/-, which had been added to the income of the assessee, he made addition of the balance amount of Rs.2,55,750/- as cash deposited in bank the source of the same remained unexplained. The assessee had filed return in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act disclosing income of Rs.3,39,250/-, and the AO made addition on all the three counts as above, resulting into income being assessed exparte u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act at Rs.22,54,438/-. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the assessee submitted copy of the bank statement, and stated that, he had made flexible FDRs using his past year savings of agricultural income and amount received on sale of land. That he did not purchase any financial product other than FDRs created through his Bank account and submitted the details of FDRs created, closed and renewed during the Financial Year 2019-20 and 2020-21 , i.e the impugned and succeeding assessment year. The Ld. CIT(A) however, rejected the assessee’s contention stating that the Bank statement now filed by the assessee tantamounted to additional documentary evidences being furnished, and in the absence of any petition filed by the assessee seeking admission of the additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962Thereafter finding no infirmity in the findings of the AO, he confirmed the addition made on account of

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat alleged unexplained time deposits of Rs.16,35,000/-.The addition made on account of cash deposited in the Bank account was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of any corroborative evidences furnished by the assessee, and the appeal of the assessee accordingly, dismissed. 5. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee first drew my attention to the fact that the bank statement furnished by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings was not an additional evidence, and the said bank statement was in possession of the AO, who had procured the same by exercising his powers u/s 133(6) of the Act from Bank itself. He pointed out, that this fact is confirmed from the assessment order itself wherein the Bank statement of the assessee is reproduced at page 10 of the order. 6. Ld. DR fairly agreed with the same. 7. Thereafter, he therefore, contended that the denial of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the Bank statement furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings treating the same as additional evidences was grossly incorrect. Thereafter, referring to the Bank statement, copy of which was placed before me, at paper book Page No.9, he pointed out that the majority of the FDRs created during the year amounting to Rs.16,35,000/-, were in fact from the proceeds of FDRs/renewal of FDRs which had matured during the year. In this regard, he pointed out that, Rs.16,35,000/- FDRs were dated as under:- 1) 09.07.2019 Rs.2,00,000/- 2) 12.07.2019 Rs.5,35,000/-

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat 3) 20.07.2019 Rs.2,00,000/- 4) 21.01.2020 Rs.5,00,000/- 5) 15.02.2020 Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.16,35,000/-

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat FDs, and therefore, I hold that there is no case for treating FDRs amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- as out of undisclosed sources. 10. Taking forward, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that, the FD of Rs.5,35,000/- created on 12.07.2019 showing an immediate credit in the Bank of Rs.5,33,100/- on 10.07.2019.The same he stated, related to sale of land by the assessee during the impugned year, and the copy of the sale deed, with respect to the same, he contended, was furnished to the Ld. CIT(A) who had failed to take note of the same. My attention was drawn to the said sale deed placed before me, at paper book page No.4-8, pointing out that the assessee had sold piece of land on 08.07.2019 for a consideration of Rs.5,33,100/-, received in cash, which was deposited in his bank account on 10.07.2019, and the FD created out of the same Rs.5,35,000/-. 11. With respect to the FD created of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 09.07.2019, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, the same was out of cash deposited in the bank account of Rs.2,55,000/- on 04.07.2019, which related to the agricultural income earned by the assessee, which was duly reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee. My attention was drawn to the return filed by the assessee, placed before me at paper book page No.1 and the computation of income reflecting agricultural income of Rs.4,55,000/-. Referring to the computation of income, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had also returned Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land corroborating the credit in the bank account of Rs.5,33,100/-.He contended that this return filed by the assessee had been accepted by

P a g e | 7 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat the AO, during the reassessment proceedings, and having accepted the same, therefore, there was no reason to question both the source of FDs of Rs.5,35,000/- created by the assessee out of sale consideration received from the sale of agricultural land and FD of Rs.2,00,000/- created by the assessee out of cash deposited from agricultural income earned. 12. Ld. DR however, contended that, since an ex parte assessment was done by the AO as the assessee had failed to cooperate during the assessment proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) had not examined these issues, the matter needed to be restored back to the file of AO for verification afresh. 13. With respect to, the addition made on account of interest income, earned by the assessee amounting to Rs.24,438/-, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee had reflected far more interest income in its return of income filed amounting to Rs.53,549/-. My attention was drawn to this fact from the computation of income of the assessee for the impugned assessment year accompanying the return of income filed by the assessee placed before me at paper book page No.2. 14. With respect to the addition made on account of the cash deposit in the bank account of Rs.2,55,000/-, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that, the source of the same stood explained as above as out of agricultural income, which had been duly disclosed in return of income filed by the assessee. He therefore, pleaded that the entire addition made in the case of the assessee on account of: i) FDRs of Rs.16,35,000/- source of which remained unexplained, ii)Interest

P a g e | 8 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat income earned by the assessee remained undisclosed of Rs.24,438/-, iii) Cash deposited in the bank account source of which remained unexplained of Rs.2,55,000/-; needed to be deleted since the facts on record clearly demonstrated the source of all these incomes/investments. 15. I have heard the contention of both the parties. With regards to the addition made on account of FDRs, of Rs.16,35,000/- the source of which remained unexplained, I have already held the sources of FDRs of Rs.9,00,000/- to be duly explained from the bank statement of the assessee itself as out of closure proceedings of earlier FDRs. With respect to the remaining FDRs, the assessee has duly explained the source of the same as out of sale proceedings of land sold by it, and out of agricultural income earned, which I find was duly disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee, and which stood accepted by the AO also. Therefore, I see no reason to hold the balance FDRs created of Rs.7,35,000/- as out of undisclosed sources. I therefore hold the source of the remaining FDRs of Rs.7,35,000/- also to be out of disclosed source, and accordingly, delete the addition made on account of the same also. Therefore, the entire addition made of FDRs amounting to Rs.16,35,000/- is deleted. 16. As for the addition made on account of interest income of Rs.24,438/- earned from banks for not disclosing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly demonstrated before me to have disclosed far more interest income earned from banks in the return of income filed. There is no reason therefore, I find to confirm the

P a g e | 9 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A), on account of interest income of Rs.24,438/-. The addition made therefore of interet income of Rs.24,438/- is deleted. 17. As for the addition made on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee of Rs.2,55,000/-, the assessee has pointed out the same to be out of agricultural income earned, which has been demonstrated before me to be duly disclosed in the return of income filed and accepted by the AO also. 18. In the light of the same, the source of cash deposited, I hold stands duly explained, and the addition therefore, made of the same of Rs.2,55,000/-is deleted. 19. In effect, the grounds raised on merits regarding the addition made in the case of the stand allowed. 20. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT

P a g e | 10 ITA No.1411/JPR/2025 Mangal Chand Jat 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur