THAKUR DASS MOTWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 1314/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had produced documents like the cash book and bank statements by invoking Rule 46A. It also noted the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) being dropped, indicating that the assessee could not be termed non-cooperative. However, the Tribunal observed that the AO's entire addition of Rs. 31,95,750/- as cash deposits was not permissible under the law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by filing all relevant materials and documents before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Thakur Das Motwani, a cloth trader, failed to file his return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. Information received by the Department indicated cash deposits of Rs. 31,95,750/- and interest of Rs. 25,740/- in his bank account during the Financial Year 2011-12. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,81,400/-, including a net profit of Rs. 2,55,660/- at 8% under Section 44AD on gross receipts of Rs. 31,95,750/-. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were not responded to, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to make an addition of Rs. 31,95,750/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee appealed to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [JCIT(A)], submitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. The JCIT(A), relying on the AO's remand report stating the assessee could have filed documents earlier, refused to admit the additional evidence and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Authorities Below erred in denying the admission of additional evidence submitted under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, violating principles of equity and natural justice, and misappreciating facts, specifically concerning the assessee's inability to comply earlier and the submission of relevant documents like cash book, bank statements, and invoices. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the denial of additional evidence was factually incorrect and violated natural justice. They pointed to the dropping of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) as evidence of non-default. They also claimed to have submitted cash book, bank statements, and bank ledger under Rule 46A, and that the cash book itself serves as a cash flow statement. Furthermore, they asserted that their cloth business was disclosed from the outset, with supporting documents for earlier years and the declared income for the current year being accepted. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and requested confirmation of the addition. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act was bad in law, as no default was committed by the assessee warranting such an order, especially considering the fate of penalty proceedings. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that no default was committed, as evidenced by the dropping of penalty proceedings, and therefore, the ex-parte assessment order was illegal. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and requested confirmation of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 44AD,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH, JAIPUR

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

Per T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member:

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Kochi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. JCIT(A)”), arising out of the ex-parte re-assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case is, the assessee is a small trader doing cloth business and not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Information received with the P a g e | 2 Thakur Das Motwani

Department, the assesse

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →