AKRAM KHAN,PRATAPGARH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NOT APPLICABLE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1088/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and the assessee's case was not properly adjudicated, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an illiterate agriculturist, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed he was not properly served notices and that the additions were wrongly made on agricultural land sales and bank deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was properly served notices and if the additions made on account of capital gains and unexplained money were justified, considering the nature of the land sold and bank deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 2(14),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1088/JPR/2025 Akram Khan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1088/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2015-16)

Akram Khan Vs. ITO, Arjun Gali, Station Road, Ward-2(2), Kota Kota �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BJPPK3825C Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 18.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.08.2024 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. The assessee in his appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1088/JPR/2025 Akram Khan 1. That the order passed by Ld. C.I.T (A) whereby additions made under Section 144 r.w.t 144B by A.O. short term capital gains (Rs. 43,75,000/-) and unexplained money under Section 69A (Rs. 69,78,990/-) have been confirmed (appellant's appeal dismissed not allowed) is bad in law and facts of the case :- a) That illiterate appellant, agriculturist was never served physicalnotice of hearing date. (Affidavit of appellant is enclosed). It is noteworthy that appellant had shifted to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan after he had sold his agricultural land in Kota District. The order passed is against the principles of Natural Justice. b) That short term capital gains (Rs. 43,75,000/-) have been wrongly computed on Rural Agricultural Lands sold which are outside the purview of "Capital Assets" - beyond the specified 8 km's from municipality Copies of Registries sold are on record's, the facts are verifiable. 13-09-2014 Rs. 11,75,000/- 16-10-2014 Rs. 16,00,000/- 16-10-2014 Rs. 16,00,000/- Total Rs. 43,75,000/- c) That additions under Section 69A (Rs. 69,78,990/-) have been wrongly made without consideration the apparent sources in Bank Of BarodaSaving Bank Account itself on record :-

Date Particular Amount 20.10.2014 Cheque No. 15347-Prachi- Rs. 25,00,000/- PRATAPG (Returned on 11.12.2014) Cash withdrawn from bank Rs. 59,96,000/-

Copy of Bank Of Baroda Statement enclosed. Copy of Cash Book enclosed. d) That appellant carves to add, amend, alter any grounds before or at the time of appellant hearings.

That delay in submission of appeal be Kindly Condoned the same has occurred due to non-receipt of order and ignorance of appellant (Affidavit enclosed).

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1088/JPR/2025 Akram Khan

3.

The appeal is time barred by 272 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the ld. CIT(A) and even did not receive any copy of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) resulting in the aforesaid delay. Considering the aforesaid application coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, as herein discussed below, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application has been filed. After going through the records, we find that the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and further that the matter needs to be examined afresh at the hands of the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”). Further the assessment order passed by the AO is also an ex-parte/best judgment assessment order. We further note that the assessee is an illiterate person-an agriculturist. The Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on account of certain deposits/investments, source of which has not been explained by the assessee. On the other hand, plea of the assessee before the lower authorities has been that the assessee had sold certain agricultural land which did not fall in the definition of capital asset as defined u/s 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act. Though, the assessee had attached a copy of the sale deed and land revenue records etc., however, it is apparent on record that the case of the assessee could not be properly adjudicated for want of proper representation on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1088/JPR/2025 Akram Khan 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. The AO will serve the notice to the assessee not only through online mode but also through physical mode and the assessee will also remain vigilant and promptly respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and will file the requisite details. The AO will examine the records furnished by the assessee and decide the issue a fresh by way of a speaking order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 26.05.2026 Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →