JHUTHA RAM,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 1365/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 October 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 16,05,000 made by the assessee in his bank account between 04.02.2012 and 31.03.2012 was a gift from his mother. This gift is within the definition of relatives under Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee's mother, in her old age, gifted part of the amount received from the sale of her gold jewellery to the assessee. This could not be doubted as it was supported by a valid, notarized Gift Deed with two witnesses, and the value of the jewellery was determined by a Registered Valuer. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit was liable to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jhutha Ram, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. The department, having received information about the assessee's investment in immovable property for Rs. 20,23,778 (including stamp duty and registration) and a cash deposit of Rs. 13,04,900, reopened the assessment under Section 147. The assessee subsequently filed a return admitting income of Rs. 2,14,997. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 20,23,778 for unexplained investment in property and Rs. 13,04,900 for unexplained cash deposit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition related to property investment but confirmed the addition for cash deposit after a remand report. The assessee is in appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and on facts for lack of jurisdiction, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not quashing it. Assessee's contention: The reassessment order is bad in law and on facts due to lack of jurisdiction and should be quashed. Revenue's contention: The revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested confirmation of the addition. 2. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 13,04,900 on account of unexplained cash deposit, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. Assessee's contention: The assessee received a cash gift of Rs. 16 lakhs from his mother, who sold old jewellery valued at Rs. 18,36,230. The AO disbelieved the gift on grounds of lack of item-wise specification of jewellery sold and the cash not being deposited directly. The assessee argued that in the jewellery trade, only total weight is usually shown, and the mother sold 642.300 grams for Rs. 16,10,567, gifting Rs. 16 lakhs. This gift is supported by a notarized gift deed with witnesses. The addition should be deleted. Revenue's contention: The revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested confirmation of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 2(41)

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 appellate order dated 30.07.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual not filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13. As per information received by the department that the assessee had made investment in I.T.A No. 1365/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Jhutha Ram

immovable property for a sum of Rs.

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 →