GHANSHYAM THONGAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1216/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee, to do substantial justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, one more opportunity should be granted. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the credit card transactions were related to his partnership business and that he faced difficulties in furnishing complete documentation due to family problems. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the entire details to be produced by the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions but granted a procedural relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ghanshyam Thongar, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to the assessee filing a return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,73,320/-. The AO noted credit card payments of Rs. 78,57,439/- made by the assessee. Despite opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish complete details. The AO consequently framed an assessment at a total income of Rs. 82,50,622/- under Section 147 read with Sections 143(3) and 144B. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)), which dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee has now appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of the entire sum of credit card transactions of Rs. 78,57,439/- to the total income, without any basis, is illegal and unjustified, particularly when the assessee claims these transactions are part of his business activities as a partner in Lotus Holidays and Shreeram Flexi Tours LLP, and the addition was made under Section 69C. 2. Whether the addition of reward points of Rs. 119,863/- to the total income is erroneous, as the assessee contends these points were not received and are subject to terms and conditions, not constituting absolute income. 3. Whether the levying of interest is consequential and liable for deletion. Assessee's Contentions: - The credit card transactions are part of the business activities of the partnership firms, Lotus Holidays and Shreeram Flexi Tours LLP, where the assessee is a partner. The payments were made using his credit card on behalf of the firms. - Due to family problems, complete bank details, profit and loss account, and balance sheet could not be submitted. - The reward points were not received and are not absolute income. - Interest is consequential and should be deleted. - The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to present evidence. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the revenue was represented by Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT, but does not explicitly detail their arguments beyond what is implicitly addressed by the AO's actions and the CIT(A)'s dismissal order. The Tribunal noted that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee, implying the revenue's stance was likely that the assessee failed to substantiate his claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 1216/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Ghanshyam Thongar The ITO, 7, Rajhans Colony, Tulsidas Ward-5(1), Vs Marg, Bhahampuri, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN: AHTPT7133P (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Sunil Gogra, C.A. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of hearing : 05-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Ghanshyam Thongar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2020-21 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. That order passed by Ld AO and maintained by Ld CIT(A) is bad in law, perverse and against the facts and law and is liable to be set aside.

I.T.A No. 1216/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Ghanshyam Thongar

2.

That Ld AO has grossly erred in doing addition of entire sum of transaction made through credit card of Rs.7857439/- into total income without any basis whereas appellant has submitted that he being partner in Lotus Holidays and in Shreeram flexi tours LLP, all these transaction are undertaken and forming part of business activities of both these firms and therefore doing addition into total income of these sums u/s.69C is absolutely illegal, unjustified and deserve to deleted. 3. That Ld AO has erred in doing addition of reward points of Rs.119863/- into total income whereas no such reward points have been received by appellant and these are coupled with certain terms & conditions and these are not absolute income of appellant. 4. That Ld AO has erred in levying interest which is consequential in nature and which may please be deleted. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the ground to this appeal with the request to allow to submit written submission at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Assessee being an individual had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration and consequently reopening of assessment was initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and in response thereto assessee filed return of income at the total income of Rs. 2,73,320/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 78,57,439/- towards the credit cards issued by Kotak Bank, Indusind Bank & HDFC Bank. Despite granting numerous opportunities by the Assessing Officer complete detail has not been furnished,

I.T.A No. 1216/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Ghanshyam Thongar

consequently Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment at the total income Rs. 82,50,622/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the appeal due to non appearance of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee is working as travel agent being partner of M/s Lotus Holidays, Shreeram Flexi Tours LLP and used to make all the transactions for ticketing etc. by using his credit card and thereafter to make payment on account of the partnership firm. It is further contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee due to some family problem, the assessee could not place on record the complete bank details reflecting the source of payment, copy of profit and loss account, balance sheet etc. and prayed forgranting one more opportunity to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 1216/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Ghanshyam Thongar

6.

Perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to prove his case, but he has failed to do so. It is settled principle of law that to do substantial justice and to stop the multiplicity of the proceedings one more opportunity may be granted. So In view of the matter, the assessee is required to be given one more opportunity, who shall appear through his representative before the Assessing Officer to produce all the evidences to prove his case. 7. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and remanded back to the AO, who shall examine the entire detail to be produced by the assessee to pass afresh assessment order by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 13/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant-

I.T.A No. 1216/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Ghanshyam Thongar

2.

The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →