MOHAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1911/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 October 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a huge addition of Rs. 2,17,83,308/- was made in the assessee's hands without the assessee being heard at all. The assessee's returned income was Rs. 4,42,620/-, and the addition was many times this amount. The assessee's counsel undertook to participate in the proceedings if given a chance, and the Ld. DR agreed that the addition was made without hearing the assessee. Considering these facts, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO to frame the assessment afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not made on merits, as the case was remanded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the assessee, Mohan Lal Sharma, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.10.2025, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was framed under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,17,83,308/-. This addition represented estimated profits on alleged business receipts, arising from cash deposits of Rs. 27,22,91,352/- in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as business receipts and estimated profits at 8% as per Section 44AD of the Act, as the assessee had declared business income on a presumptive basis. The assessee remained non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition. The assessee's returned income was Rs. 4,42,620/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned additions and disallowances made in the order under Section 144/144B of the Act are bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons, and thus liable for deletion? (Assessee's contention: Yes, due to lack of jurisdiction and other reasons. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 2. Whether the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 144 of the Act without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and complying with mandatory statutory requirements, thereby breaching natural justice and rendering the order liable for quashing? (Assessee's contention: Yes, the assessment was framed in gross breach of natural justice. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,17,83,308/- as presumed business income at 8% on the gross turnover of cash deposits of Rs. 27,22,91,352/- under Section 44AD of the Act, rejecting the declared business income, is contrary to law and facts? (Assessee's contention: Yes, the addition is contrary to law and facts. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,61,400/- as interest received from AU Small Finance Bank Limited under 'Income From Other Sources', rejecting the declared business income, is contrary to law and facts? (Assessee's contention: Yes, the addition is contrary to law and facts. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 5. Whether the AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234B and 234D of the Act, and if so, is the appellant not liable for such interest? (Assessee's contention: Yes, the appellant denies liability for such interest, and it is contrary to law and facts. Revenue's contention: Not recorded).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 44AD,Section 234B,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Adv. (Thru V.C.)
Hearing: 14.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

P a g e | 2 Mohan Lal Sharma Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- 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 17.10.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

1.

The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 144/144B of the Act dated 12.03.2024 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of juri icti

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 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →