MOHINUDDIN QURESHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 762/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 October 2026AY 2008-096 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 70 days in filing the Revenue's appeal. On the merits, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of acting as a power-of-attorney holder and receiving sale consideration on behalf of the actual owner. The primary reason for the CIT(A) upholding the addition was the assessee's failure to substantiate the subsequent transfer of funds to the alleged owner. The assessee has now expressed a willingness to provide bank statements and supporting evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to substantiate the claim. The impugned order was set aside regarding the addition of ₹11,10,214, and the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee is to furnish relevant bank statements and evidence of transfer to Shri Sayar Chand Bairwa. The AO is directed to examine the power of attorney, sale deed, flow of funds, and other materials, and decide afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were kept open.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal concerns assessment year 2008-09, challenging an order dated 30.12.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 148/147 based on information about an immovable property sale for ₹8,21,000, with a stamp duty value of ₹11,10,214. As the assessee had not filed a return, a notice under Section 148 was issued on 23.03.2015. Due to non-compliance, the AO completed reassessment on 08.03.2016, adding ₹11,10,214 for the property transaction and ₹2,00,000 as estimated income, totaling ₹13,10,214. The CIT(A) deleted the ₹2,00,000 addition but upheld the ₹11,10,214 addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 08.03.2016 passed under section 148 r.w.s 147 is bad in law and on facts for reasons including non-service of notices and violation of natural justice. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147/148). 2. Whether the action taken under section 148 is contrary to law and facts, rendering the assessment order bad. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹11,10,214 on account of alleged sale of property. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 147/148). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he acted solely as a power-of-attorney holder for the actual owner, Shri Sayar Chand Bairwa, and received the sale consideration on his behalf. The power of attorney authorized him to execute sale documents and receive proceeds. The assessee expressed willingness to furnish bank statements and other supporting documents to prove the transfer of funds to the owner and even produce the owner. Revenue's Contention: The AO noted that the sale consideration was credited to the assessee's bank account, not directly to the owner's, inferring the assessee was the actual owner. The CIT(A) upheld the addition as the assessee failed to provide evidence of subsequent transfer of funds to the alleged owner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 23.10.2026

Per Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 30.12.2024, passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) for assessment year 2008-09, raising following grounds:-

1.

Impugned assessment order dated 08.03.2016 passed under section 148 r.w.s 147 is bad in law and on facts being against the principal of 2 Asst. Year: 2008-09 natural justice, non- service of notices and for many more other statutory reasons.

2.

The very action taken u/s 148 is contrary to the law as well facts resultantly the impugned assessment order passed u/s 148 dated 08.03.2016 is contrary to the law as well as facts and deser

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →