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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1911/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. ITO 130, Main Bazar, Renwal Maji Ward 7(2) Tehsil Phagi Jaipur Jaipur M/s Mahendra Gargieya & Associates Advocates & Tax Consultants 537- 538, 5th Floor, Mahima’s Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: DQSPS 8588G Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Tanuj Jain, Adv. (Thru V.C.) Respondent by : Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl. CIT

Date of Hearing 14.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2026 O R D E R

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1911/JPR/2025 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 jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 2. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in framing the asst. u/s 144 of the Act without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and even without complying with the mandatory statutory requirement of law. The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed. 3. Rs.2,17,83,808/-: The Id. AO as well as Id. CIT(A) also erred in law as well as on facts of the case in presuming business income @ 8% as prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act on the gross turnover of cash deposit in the bank of Rs.27,22,91,352/ rejecting the income from business already declared. The addition so made being contrary to the provisions of law & facts kindly be deleted full. 4. Rs.7,61,400/-: The Id. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also erred in law as well as on facts of the case in presuming Interest received from AU Small Finance Bank Limited as Income From Other Sources rejecting the income from business already declared. The addition so made being contrary to the provisions of law & facts kindly be deleted full. 5. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1911/JPR/2025 Mohan Lal Sharma 3. Orders of the Authorities below reveal that the assessment in the present case was framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, making addition of Rs.2,17,83,308/- to the income of the assessee being the profits estimated on the alleged business receipts of the assessee. The assessee was found to have deposited cash of Rs.27,22,91,352/- in his bank account and in the absence of any explanation offered by the assessee for the source of the same during assessment proceedings, the said cash deposits weretreated as his business receipts by the AO, noting that the assessee had returned business income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act in his return of income filed. The profits on the same wereestimated by applying section 44AD of the Act at the rate of 8% andaccordingly addition was made of Rs.2,17,83,308/- as the business income of the assessee. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee remained non-compliant and the addition therefore made, was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that huge addition has been made and confirmed in the hands of the assessee without the assessee being heard at all and undertook on behalf of the assessee to participate in the proceedings if given a chance. He pleaded therefore that the matter be restored back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh. 6. Ld. DR though vehemently opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee; however, he agreed that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was without hearing assessee at all. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, undoubtedly a huge addition of Rs.2,17,83,308/- has been made in the

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1911/JPR/2025 Mohan Lal Sharma hands of the assessee without being heard at all. The assessee had initially filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.4,42,620/-, the addition made to his income is many times the returned income and the fact of matter is that the same has been made without hearing the assessee at all. 8. Noting that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has undertaken to ensure that the assessee will participate and cooperate with the Revenue Authorities, in the interest of justice we consider it fit therefore to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to frame assessment afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law. 9. In effect, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Kuldip Singh) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 15.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur