DCIT, CC-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. JAY PRAKASH JHA, RANCHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. RAJANI GUDURI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Jay Prakash Jha, Central Circle-1, 896, Hira Nandan Jha, Near Kali Vs. Ranchi. Mandir, Namkum, Ranchi PAN No. AICPJ 2052 P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Tarun Rohtagi, C.A. & Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, C.A. Date of hearing 07/10/2026 Date of pronouncement 15/10/2026

O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna dated 20/02/2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,86,43,431/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment, ignoring the incriminating material seized during search proceedings under Section 132, the statutory presumption under Section 292C, and the failure of the assessee to discharge the onus cast upon him to explain the nature and source of the investment. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee remained non- compliant throughout the assessment proceedings and did not furnish any explanation or supporting evidence despite repeated statutory notices, thereby justifying the assessment completed under Section 144 of the Act, and erred in accepting the assessee's unsubstantiated plea

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha of mistaken identity without any corroborative evidence or proper verification of facts. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order/notice of the A.O. be restored. 4. That the applicant craves leave to add. alter, delete, and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the premises of Shri Kumar Jaimangal and his associates in Ranchi, Patna, Delhi, Kolkata and Bermo on 04/11/2022. The assessee, Shri Jay Pakash Jha was also covered under this search and seizure operation. Consequently, case was selected for proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21/03/2024 after getting approval of the competent authority. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of ₹ 17,71,170/-. Thereafter, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were also issued from time to time. A show cause notice dated 20/02/2025 was issued to the assessee and the assessee was confronted with the seized document JMD-06 seized from the office premises of Shri Amit Thakur, JMD Megapolish Delhi during the course of search and seizure operation conducted as above. Following information was sought from the assessee: Page 85 to 94 Sale deed executed by Adani Provide copy of Sale Deed Realty in favour of Ms. Sudha alongwith Registration deed Thakur and Prakash Jha for (all pages). Furnish source of Rs. 1,86,43,431/-. investment, mode of investment, bank statement highlighting above payments. Provide documentary evidences in support of your claims.

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha The assessee was further asked to give the details such as nature of business, activities, bank account, statements, return of income Profit and Loss account, 26AS etc. The assessee was also asked to give the details of the sale deed alongwith registration of the property, source of investment, mode of investment, bank statement highlighting the payments etc. However, no information was given to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act and added a sum of ₹1,86,43,431/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act and taxed the same at the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 20/02/2026, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On the ground of addition of ₹ 1,86,43,431/-, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the addition of ₹ 1,86,43,431/- was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the seized document JMD-06 recovered during the search and seizure proceedings from the premises of a third party and on perusal of the seized document, it is evident that the booking/allotment relates to Unit No. B-1202 in "Adani Oyster Grande, Sector 102, Dwarka Expressway, Delhi" and the names mentioned therein Authorised Representative Dr. Om Prakash Jha and Sudha Thakur. There is no reference to the appellant's name, PAN, address, or signature. The PAN reflected in the documents is different from that of the

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha appellant. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to establish that the appellant and the person named in the document are one and the same. The ld. CIT(A) finally concluded that it is case of mistaken identity and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this very ground cannot be sustained. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the onus casts upon the assessee to explain and nature of investment which the assessee has failed to do so before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act and therefore, it cannot be held that it is a case of mistaken identity in the absence of any corroborative evidence or proper verification of facts. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. During the appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Authorised Representative has submitted as under: "All the grounds of appeal are pertaining to the addition of Rs. 186,43,431. 2.1 The Learned Assessing officer has made the addition on the following grounds: "With respect to seized document JMD-06 seized from the office premises of Shri Amit Thakur, JMD Megapolish Delhi during the course of search and Seizure operation under section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 04/11/2022, assessee was required to furnish the following vide notice u/s 19.11.2024: Page 85 to 94 Sale deed executed by Provide copy of Sale Deed Adani Realty in favour of alongwith Registration deed (all Ms. Sudha Thakur and pages). Furnish source of

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha Prakash Jha for Rs. investment, mode of investment, 1,86,43,431/-. bank statement highlighting above payments. Provide documentary evidences in support of your claims. In this regard It is seen that even basic details such as nature of business activity, Bank account statements, Return of income, P&L,26AS etc as asked for earlier has not been provided by assessee. Furthermore, no sale deed along with registration deed has been furnished by you. No source of investment, mode of investment, bank statement highlighting above payments have been furnished. In fact, no documentary evidences whatsoever have been submitted to prove that this amount paid by you has been accounted for. Upon perusal of records available with this office it is seen that you do not have the capacity or creditworthiness to pay the aforementioned amount. In view of the above, as source of aforementioned investment by you is not explained, you are required to show cause why Rs. 1,86,43,431/- should not be considered unexplained in your hands and accordingly be added under provisions of Income Tax Act 1961. 2.2 Addition of Rs.186,43,431 has been made in respect seized document JMD -06 seized from the office premises of Shri Amit Thakur, The document pertains to Flat booking executed by Adani realty in respect of unit no.B-1202, Adani oyster Grande Sector 102, Dwarka Expressway, Delhi in favour of Dr Om Prakash Jha & Sudha Thakur, Dr Omprakash jha is the father in law of Mr. Amit Kumar and Mrs. Sudha Thakur is the wife of Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur. The copy of the document is enclosed in the Paper Book. A bare perusal of the document would show that it does not pertain to the Assessee at all. There is no mention of the Assesse's name or his PAN. 2.3 PAN of Dr. Omprakash Jha is AFTPJ5497G. The PAN of the Assessee Is AICPJ2052P. The document does not pertain to the Assessee at all. It is a case of mistaken identity . Thus the addition needs to be deleted. It finds support from: i)(2014] 44 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Ralson (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment - General (Irrelevant Information) - Assessment year 1990-91-Information

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha received from bank as to four fictitious companies on basis of which Assessing Officer formed his belief under section 147, did not relate to relevant year - Reasons recorded indicated themselves that alleged creation of accounts and transaction of money through them by assessee did not correspond to previous year in question so as to prove that income that escaped assessment in relevant previous year Whether notice issued for reassessment was to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 8 & 10] [In favour of assessee] ii) Dr. Ajit Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax* S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU, 11. W.P. (C) NOS. 924 & 1045, OF 2014 & 3077 & 3078 OF 2015 C.M. NOS. 1873, 1874, 2151 & 2152, 2151 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) & 5498 & 5500 OF 2015 (FOR STAY) MARCH 3, 2016 Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Method of accounting Change of Assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 Where reason for reopening of assessment was a mistaken factual premise that assessee had changed system of accounting from mercantile to cash system, reopening of assessment was not valid [In favour of assessee] The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee on the ground that since the assessee was following cash system of accounting certain expenses claimed by the assessee were not allowable, iii)(2023) 330 CTR (Bom) 449 : NARESH BALCHANDRARAO SHINDE VS. ITO On a bare perusal of the registered sale deed, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not the purchaser of the said property as stated in the notice issued under s. 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. Despite supplying copy of the registered sale deed to the AO, it has not been taken into consideration by him before passing the order under s. 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. The same thus clearly indicates lack of application of judicious mind to the material on record. iv)M/S Tirupati Trading Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 15017/202213.10.2023 A perusal of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit reveals that, concededly, a mistake has been made in triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner. For convenience, the said paragraphs are extracted hereafter:

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha "3. Based on analysis of bank statements, it is submitted that verification has been made by this office. On perusal of information received from the bank it is observed actual details of the beneficiaries pertained to Tirapati trading co. PAN AEVPT9452L and Tirapati trading company BWXPK7867H. Inadvertently Tirupati trading Corporation PAN AADFT9155C was quoted while sharing the information 4. Submitted for information and necessary action. Hence, based on the above- mentioned correspondence from the Office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Unit-II. Faridabad, it is now evident that during the financial year under reference, no transactions have been carried out by the assessee with Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bagri and his name was inadvertently mentioned by the Investigation Wing in the report due to similarity in the names. 5. In view of the assertions made in the counter-affidavit, Mr Maratha, cannot but accept that reassessment against the petitioner cannot continue 2.4 The document JMD 6 has all the details required by the Learned Assessing officer. No further details were required. As regards other documents such as return of Income, 26AS, AIS etc asked for by the Learned Assessing officer were already on record. There is no record of the transaction being reported in 26AS as well. The Assessee does not check his mails frequently thus was not aware of the e mails being sent by the tax department therefore was not able to respond to the notices. In view of the above clear facts it is prayed that the addition of Rs. Rs.186,43,431 be deleted." 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Though, the assessee has failed to appear before the Assessing Officer to explain whether the information pertains to him or someone else but in absence of that, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act and added the entire investment of ₹ 1,86,43,431/- without conducting any enquiry whatsoever to establish the actual identity of the assessee as the documents seized during the course of search and seizure operation, the said document was found and

I.T.A. No. 310/RAN/2026 DCIT Vs Jay Prakash Jha seized from the premises of a third person wherein the name of Dr. Om Prakash Jha and Sudha Thakur are given. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it was held that the said document does not belong to the assessee, therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) as he has rightly pointed out in the impugned order that it is a case of mistaken identity and no evidence was brought on record by the AO that this document belongs to the assessee. Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 15/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJANI GUDURI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 15/10/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi