PRAVEEN KUMAR SAINI,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 325/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 September 2026AY 2014-1511 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Praveen Kumar Saini, an individual engaged in civil construction, is appealing an order dated 18.11.2025 by the CIT(A), which upheld an assessment order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) for assessment year 2014-15. The dispute arose after a Scorpio vehicle carrying the assessee was intercepted on 15.11.2013, leading to the seizure of cash (Rs 45,76,698), a gold necklace, foreign currency, and loose papers. A warrant under section 132A was issued on 25.11.2013 for these items. The assessee filed a return on 28.10.2015 declaring Rs 31,20,000. The AO completed the assessment at Rs 4,81,22,550, making additions for estimated business income (Rs 80,000), loose papers (Rs 4,26,48,355), seized cash (Rs 45,76,698), and gold necklace (Rs 97,500), and disallowing an 80C deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) is valid. It reasoned that section 153A applies to the six assessment years preceding the requisition year, not the requisition year itself. The assessment for the requisition year is a regular assessment under section 143(3), with section 153B(1)(b) prescribing the time limit. Therefore, ground No. 1 was dismissed. Regarding the loose papers, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and did not provide specific reasoning for dismissing this ground, other than stating it was dismissed. For the cash addition (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations unsatisfactory and shifting. The initial explanation of borrowings was unsubstantiated, and the subsequent explanation of own income and savings lacked evidence. The Tribunal held that section 69A was attracted as the assessee admitted ownership of unrecorded money with an unsatisfactory explanation. Thus, Ground No. 3 was dismissed. For the gold necklace (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was inapplicable as the necklace was freshly purchased on the day of seizure, and the source of the Rs 97,500 investment was unexplained. Thus, Ground No. 4 was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) is void ab initio, given that a requisition under section 132A was made, and thus should have been completed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: The assessment is void ab initio because a requisition under section 132A necessitates assessment under section 153A. - Revenue's contention: Supported the orders of the authorities below. 2. Whether the addition of Rs 4,26,48,355 on account of loose papers is justified. - Assessee's contention: The loose papers are undated, unsigned, crossed out, not in the assessee's handwriting, found in a vehicle not belonging to him, are dumb documents, and the addition suffers from duplication. - Revenue's contention: Supported the orders of the authorities below, invoking presumption under section 132(4A). 3. Whether the addition of Rs 45,76,698 on account of cash treated as unexplained is justified. - Assessee's contention: The cash is explained by income disclosed in the return and past savings. - Revenue's contention: Supported the orders of the authorities below, citing assessee's admission of ownership and shifting explanations. 4. Whether the addition of Rs 97,500 on account of gold jewellery treated as unexplained investment is justified. - Assessee's contention: The gold necklace is covered by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and within limits for a male member. - Revenue's contention: Supported the orders of the authorities below, noting the assessee admitted purchase on the day of seizure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153B(1)(b),Section 132A,Section 153A,Section 153C,Section 69A,Section 69,Section 131,Section 44AD,Section 132(4A),Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 18.11.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. Praveen Kumar Saini

2.

There is a delay of 17 days in filing this appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, stating that the impugned or

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 153B(1)(b)

All 140 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153B(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →