RAJESH JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO-1, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

ITA 1022/IND/2026Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 October 2026AY 2023-246 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, including the lender's bank statement for FY 2022-23, revised return, and computation of income reflecting the sale of immovable property. The Tribunal found this evidence relevant for examining the genuineness of the transactions and the lender's creditworthiness. Since this evidence was not examined by the AO, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the bank transactions, source of funds, lender's financial capacity, and property sale documents, and decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions, leaving all related issues open for adjudication. The addition of Rs 29,27,034 under section 68 was thus restored to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajesh Jain, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2023-24 declaring an income of Rs 13,46,030. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3) at Rs 42,73,064, adding Rs 29,27,034 under section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans from his mother-in-law. The assessee had provided loan confirmation, identity particulars, and bank transaction details, explaining the source as sale proceeds of the lender's immovable property. However, the bank statement furnished pertained to FY 2021-22 instead of FY 2022-23. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, seeking admission of additional evidence, including the correct bank statement for FY 2022-23 and revised income details.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs 29,27,034 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 was justified, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? (Assessee's contention: The addition was not justified. The revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the authorities below. 2. Whether the applicability of section 115BBE was justified, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? (Assessee's contention: The applicability was not justified. The revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the authorities below.) The Tribunal also considered the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI & SHRI ARVIND SONI

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh
Hearing: 13.10.2026

Per Arvind Soni, AM:

1.

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) U/S 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Order”.

2.

The assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2023-24, declaring a total income of Rs 13,46,030/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 30.10.2023, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case was selecte

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.

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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →