SH. RAJAN JHIRIWAL,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 1294/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,20,799/- is liable to be deleted from the hands of the assessee. This is because the Punjab National Bank account statement of M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. clearly shows that on March 6, 2021, this amount was transferred by NEFT to Agarwal Enterprises, as evidenced by the bank statement and ledger account. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the remaining cash amount of Rs. 56,754/- is also not correctly added in the hands of the assessee. It was admitted that the image was found from the accountant's mobile phone and was in the name of 'Robin Ji', not the assessee. Therefore, this addition is also liable to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Rajan Jhiriwal, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on January 28, 2022, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,42,59,960/-. A search action under Section 132 was conducted in the case of Mama Group, Alwar, on July 20, 2022. During the search, an image dated March 1, 2021, was found on the mobile phone of the main accountant of Mama Group. This image, in the name of 'Robin Ji', noted an amount of Rs. 1,77,553/-, comprising RTGS payment of Rs. 1,20,799/- and cash payment of Rs. 56,754/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 5,80,431/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,77,533/-. The assessee is in appeal before the ITAT against this confirmation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,77,553/- made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when the seized material is in the name of 'Robin Ji' and not the assessee, Shri Rajan Jhiriwal, and the source of payment is claimed to be out of sale proceeds of flats owned by M/s. MNR Infratech Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee is a Director? Assessee's Contention: The addition is incorrect as the seized material pertains to 'Robin Ji', not the assessee. The noted amounts represent construction expenditure by M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The RTGS payment of Rs. 1,20,799/- to Agarwal Enterprises is verifiable through bank statements and ledger accounts of M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The cash payment of Rs. 56,754/- is also related to M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., making the addition in the assessee's hands unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. CIT-DR could not dispute the statement regarding transactions between M/s Makarr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Agarwal Enterprises but relied on the orders of the lower authorities to confirm the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 132,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar

PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 10.07.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-4, arising out of reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to A.Y. 2021-22. I.T.A No. 1294/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Shri Rajan Jhiriwal

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.01.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 1,42,59

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →