SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 509/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 November 2025AY 2021-221 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the directions of the Hon'ble High Court regarding the condonation of delay. The assessee filed the appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the order with a prayer for condoning the delay. The CIT(A) did not deal with the petition for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and allowed grounds no. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee. Regarding ground no. 6, the Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 153C lacked jurisdiction because there was no transfer of the assessee's case from Delhi to Jaipur, as indicated by the address in the notices and PAN database. Relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Deep Channel Kothari vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that objections regarding lack of jurisdiction must be decided first. Since the notice under section 153C was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction, grounds no. 7 to 11 became academic, ground no. 12 premature, and ground no. 13 general. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 505/JP/2025 was allowed. The Tribunal further held that the facts and issues in ITA Nos. 506 to 509/JP/2025 were similar, and the decision in ITA No. 505/JP/2025 would apply mutatis mutandis, thus allowing these appeals as well.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sonu Dusad, has filed five appeals (ITA Nos. 505 to 509/JP/2025) against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur, for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2021-22. These appeals challenge the CIT(A)'s orders dated 16.01.2025. The assessment orders were passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, under section 153 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals arise from a search and seizure operation conducted on 13.07.2020 in the 'OM KOTHARI group' of Jaipur, which revealed incriminating documents and data related to unaccounted cash receipts on the sale of flats in the 'PALLACIA' project. Notices under section 153C were issued to the assessee, and assessment orders were passed, which were then appealed to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal at the threshold on grounds of delay, without condoning the delay and considering the directions of the Hon'ble High Court (Question of law and fact, relying on Section 250 of the Act). 2. Whether the notice issued under section 153C of the Act was without jurisdiction and bad in law, lacking the requisite satisfaction note (Question of law, relying on Section 153C of the Act). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed under section 153C, which was allegedly barred by limitation and passed without requisite approval under section 153D (Question of law, relying on Sections 153C and 153D of the Act). Assessee's Arguments: - The CIT(A)'s order was perverse and arbitrary. - The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the assessee's residential status (Non-Resident Indian) and upholding the AO's action. - The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without condoning it, despite directions from the High Court. - The CIT(A) erred in disputing the date of receipt of the assessment order and not appreciating the proof of service submitted by the assessee. - The notice under section 153C was without jurisdiction and lacked satisfaction. - The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's non-compliance with Section 144C. - The assessment order was barred by limitation and passed without requisite approval. - The CIT(A) erred in holding that Rs. 1,42,50,000/- was paid by the assessee and confirming the addition of Rs. 78,63,150/- under section 69 and taxing the addition under section 115BBE. - The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground of initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c). Revenue's Arguments: - The revenue supported the findings recorded in the order of the CIT(A), particularly regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The revenue sought time to provide details regarding the transfer of the case under section 127 and was unable to provide the order, stating it was not provided to them.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 144,Section 250,Section 127,Section 144C,Section 153D,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(27)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, A JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /
Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 12/11/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The details of the five separate orders which are under challenge before this tribunal are as under : Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Year Date on which the Impugned order was passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals- 4,Jaipur [CIT(A)] Date and section under which the assessment order was passed by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 144 1 505/JP/2025 2015

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →