TULSI DAS,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JPR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1925/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Tulsi Das Vs. ITO C/o. CA R.S. Poonia, D- Ward 5(1) 82-B, Siwad Area, Jaipur Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AIZPJ 7357 G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. R.S. Poonia, CA & Ms. Payal Johrar, Adv. Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 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)”), dated 12.06.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset, the appeal was noted to be time barred for filing by 120 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1925/JPR/2025 Tulsi Das delay stating that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) since the email address provided to the Ld. CIT(A) for communication purposes was not that of the assessee, but that provided by his Consultant, and he was not informed by his Counsel of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order. That it was only when the portal of the assessee was checked in the second week of December 2025, that he became aware of the passing of Ld. CIT(A) order and accordingly filed the present appeal before me, on 29th of December 2025 albeit with a delay of 120 days. 3. He further contended that, if the delay is not condoned, it would result in gross injustice to the assessee, since the addition made to his income is multiple times that returned by him, being addition of Rs.13,36,500/- as against income returned of Rs.4,43,830/-. He further contended that, the addition had been made unfairly, without appreciating the contentions of the assessee before the Lower Authorities. 4. Ld. DR however, opposed the delay. 5. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I am of the view, that the delay in filing of the present appeal of 120 days needs to be condoned. Considering that, the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the same and also in the interest of justice, considering the fact that the addition confirmed in his case multiple times that returned by the assessee as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as above. I have noted that the email id mentioned in Form No.35 for communication with the Ld. CIT(A) did not relate to assessee being

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1925/JPR/2025 Tulsi Das pawankumarrohani@gmail.com. Therefore, I find that, explanation of the assessee of being unaware of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A)s order for long period of time constitutes sufficient cause for the delay. Moreover, denying the assessee opportunity of hearing on account of delay would result in gross injustice, since the addition made in his hands is multiple times that returned. Therefore, considering that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for delay, and to meet the ends of justice, I condone the delay of 120 days in filing of the present appeal before me. 6. Taking up the appeal for hearing the grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the order passed by the learned assessing officer which is liable to be quashed. Kindly quash the same. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,36,500/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the income of appellant is wrong, illegal and bad in Law. Kindly delete the addition. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 7. The solitary issue in the present case, relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account to the tune of Rs.13,36,500/- 8. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee consistently before both the Lower Authorities and also before me wasthat the bank account considered for the purposes of making addition, though in the name of the assessee, however it related to transactions carried out by

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1925/JPR/2025 Tulsi Das his brother in his business. And therefore, the cash deposited therein, did not pertain to the assessee. At this juncture, ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked, as to what was the evidence to corroborate this explanation, to which he conceded to have no evidence. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter, pleaded that the entire cash deposited in his bank account be not treated as income, but be considered as his business income and profit earned thereon, be estimated by applying rate prescribed u/s. 44AD of the Act. He pointed out, that the assessee conducting a small business had filed his return of income declaring income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act, and since, there was no other source of income, the entire deposits in the other bank account be also treated as emanating from his business, and income estimated thereon by applying the rate prescribed u/s. 44AD of the Act. 10. Ld. DR however, opposed the same. 11. I find no reason to disagree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is fact on record, that the assessee is operating a small business as a proprietor, and filed return of income declaring income on presumptive basis from his business in terms of provisions of Section 44AD of the Act. The bank account of the assessee in which the cash deposit to the tune of Rs.13,36,500/- has been added to his income has been reproduced at page 2 of the assessment order, and I find therefrom, that there are small deposits therein, on various dates throughout the year of cash deposit totaling Rs.13,36,500/-.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1925/JPR/2025 Tulsi Das 12. Since, the assessee has been found to have no other source of income other than the business carried out by it, the cash deposit in his bank account can safely be attributed to his business, and the income earned thereon, be computed by applying the rate prescribed u/s. 44AD of the Act. I accordingly, direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act on the total cash deposits of Rs.13,36,500/- . 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms. 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 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur