SHRI JITENDRA BEHL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,47,500/-in respect of cash deposit in bank account as unexplained money.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in not considering the explanation of the appellant supported from documentary evidences in right prespective and judicious manner.

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the provision of section 69A of the Act.

7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in recording the various observations which are contrary to the real & material facts.

8. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground at or before the time of hearing.

9. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.”

3. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 64 days. The assessee has filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed to condone Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO the delay in filling the present appeal therein raising the following contention:- “1. That on 05.08.2024, the assessee had received the mail from CPC in respect of adjustment of I.T. Refund against demand for the year under consideration. The assessee had informed about such mail to the authorised representative and the authorised representative after verifying the mail had informed that the CIT(A), NFAC had dismissed the appeal filed and confirmed the demand created by Id AO, therefore CPC had send mail for adjustment of IT Refund against due demand.

2. That the appellate order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), NFAC had neither received through mail nor any information to me in this regard. I came to know first time on 05.08.2024 that our appeal had been dismissed by CIT(A). Thereafter, I collect the order and approach Adv Rajendra Jain for filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 3. That the grounds raised in the memo of appeal are apparently covered in favour of the assessee and there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing the appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and to be admitted for adjudication by taking a lenient view.

4. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression 'Sufficient Cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.

In light of above where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred as settled by Hon'ble Courts.”

3.1 In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn in before the Notary, Public Jaipur dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder :- “Affidavit in support of condonation of delay in filing of appeal I Jitendra Behl S/o Brij Kumar Behl, aged 59, permanently residint at House No. J-07 Ridhi Sidhi, Sri Ganganagar state on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. 1. That I have move an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the Asstt. Year 2017-18.

2. That facts narrated in the application and reasons for delay in filing of appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief [Jintendra Behl] Deponent Whatever stated above are true and correct as per my information and belief. Nothing has been hided or concealed. So God help me. Place: Sri Ganganagar [Jitendra Behl] Dated: 21.01.2025 Deponent”

Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO 4. The facts stated in a sworn statement was not controverted by the ld. DR and therefore, considering the reasons mentioned in the said application accompanied by an Affidavit of the assessee, we feel that the reasons mentioned in the Affidavit that the assessee was not in receipt of the impugned order physically and thereby it constitute sufficient cause for him not to file the appeal in time. Therefore, taking a lenient view and considering the principles laid down in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), we condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before us.

6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here below:-

“5.1 Assessees main plank is that business remained closed from the year 2015-16 Ay onwards, there was recovery from sundry debtors totalling Rs 22.88 lakhs. Total recovery effected is Rs 1447500. But no evidence whatso ever was produced to prove this point. The possible evidences are - bank statement showing credit of the amount, cheque details, Balance sheet showing reduction in debtors in the subsequent Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO year, credit in the Computation sheet, P and L account, disclosure in the R/I in the schedules, confirmation from the debtors, party wise ledger account to prove that recovery of Rs 1447500 was affected. In the absence of these details it is difficult to accept the contention of the assessee. Moreover there should be proof that the payment made by debtors went directly to the bank account as deposits. In the absence of these details it is concluded that the cash deposits found in bank A/c No.34010788166 maintained with the SBI, Sukhadia Circle, Sriganganagar is to be brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee failed to prove before the assessing authority as well as the appeal authority the nature and source of cash deposits satisfactorily and the addition at Rs 1447500 which is unexplained money is upheld. What is pertinent is this information is gathered under section 133(6). 5.2 In the present case, assessee deposited cash in its bank accounts, various credit entries appearing in the bank accounts but such credits are not recorded in the books of accounts. Further the nature and source of such deposits made in the bank accounts were not at all explained, leave alone satisfactory explanation. Further for invoking deeming provisions u/s 69A, there should be clearly identifiable asset or unexplained money. It is amply proved beyond doubt that the assessee has deposited cash and other credits appearing in bank accounts stands unexplained and the sum of Rs 1447500 are identifiable unexplained assets. All three limbs of section 69A stands qualified in the case of the  Assessee was found to be the owner of the money:  Such money was not recorded in the books of accounts; and  The nature and source is not identifilable. 5.3 When the assessee has failed to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it is to be held that the money by virtue of cash deposits represents the earning of the assessee during the year from undisclosed sources within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act. Section 69A of the Act deals with money, etc, owned by the assessee and found in possession including in the bank accounts of the assessee which remained unexplained. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein under: "Section 69A-Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any. maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." 5.4 In the instant case, the assessee was having huge cash deposits in his bank accounts which remained unexplained. The assessee is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the bank account but has failed to offer any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such huge cash deposits appearing in the bank accounts. The scheme of Section 69A of the Act would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, etc. owned by the assessee is not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then the value of such money is deemed to be the income of the assessee. This provision of the Act treats unexplained money as deemed income where the nature and source of acquisition of cash deposits in the banks remains unexplained or not satisfactorily explained. No doubt, the assessee has deposited huge cash in his bank accounts but the nature and source of such cash deposits were not at all explained. Hence, the limbs of Section 69A of the Act stands qualified in the case of the assessee i.e., the assessee was found to be owner of the money and source remained unidentifiable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27-03-1963 in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others reported in 1964 AIR 697 (SC) wherein it was held that, the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the Revenue was justified in holding the same as assessable income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT (1988) reported in 172 ITR 250 in which similar issue was adjudicated in favour of the Revenue.  While affirming the view of MP HC held that the expression 'income' as used in section 69A, has a wide meaning which meant anything which came in resulted in gain and on this basis concluded that assessee had income which he had invested in purchasing article and he could be held to be the owner and the value could be deemed to be his income by virtue of section 69A."

Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO  The hon SC in the case of Srilekha Banerjee and others vs CIT, Bihar and Orissa reported in 1964 AIR 697, dt 27/3/1963 held that the source of money has not been satisfactorily proved, the dept was justified in holding it to be assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed source.  "the fact of the case was that assessee had encashed 51 high denomination notes of Rs 1000 each in January. Assessee's explanation in his application for encashment of notes was that he was a colliery proprietor and contractor, that for conducting the business and for payment to labour which came to about Rs 30000 every week to Rs 40000 every week he had to keep large sums of money to meet emergency and that sum of Rs 50000 realised by encashment of the notes was neither profit nor part of profit but was floating capital for the purpose of conducting business. the ITO did not accept this explanation and treated this amount as profit from some undisclosed source and assessed it as assessable income. In Manindra Nath Das vs CIT, BIHAR and Onssa the taxpayer had encashed Notes of the value of Rs 28600, which he contended were his accumulated savings. His explanation was accepted in respect of Rs 15000, because 15 notes could be traced to a bank, but was rejected in respect of balance. The PATNA HC pointed out that if an assessee received an amount in the year of account, it was for him to show that the amount so received did not bear the character of income, and the taxpayer in the case had failed to prove this fact in respect of the remaining notes.  In view of the detailed discussions, it is held that the cash deposits of Rs 1447500 made during the financial year remained unexplained. The assessee has not responded to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and also to the showcause notice issued during the appeal proceedings. As the assessee failed to offer any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits appearing in the banks, the sum of Rs 1447500 is deemed as unexplained money within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and is assessed as such. The addition so made is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the specified rate.  Since the taxable income of the assessee is determined after making an addition referring to the income in section 69A of the Act, penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC of the Act was initiated separately.

Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO Addition upheld: 1447500/- In the result the appeal is dismissed.” 5.5 7. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this tribunal. In support of the contention so raised in the oral arguments the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following evidence / records:-

S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of Written submission before the Ld. CIT(A). 1-6 2. Copy of VAT certificate 7-8 3. Copy of ITR, computation and Financial statement etc. 9-14 4. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and letter of 15-16 transfer of jurisdiction. 5. Reply dated 09.12.2019 furnished by assessee during 17-18 assessment proceeding. 6. Copy of cash book, details of sundry debtors along with 19-35 ledger accounts etc.

8. In addition, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he wishes to take up the legal ground in addition to the facts narrated on the merits of the dispute. As per the legal grounds so raised by the assessee he referred page 14 of his paper book being the copy of the Aadhar Card of the assessee, Page 9 being the copy of the ITR submitted by the assessee for the year consideration on 29.03.2018, page 8 being the copy of the registration issued by the Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO Commercial Tax department. All these records shows the address of the assessee is Ganganagar. Whereas the notice was issued by the ITO, Ward 3 (2) Jaipur and in response the assessee vide letter dated 09.12.2019 already stated that the ld. AO has not jurisdiction to issue the notice based on that set of facts [ para 1 of reply page 17 of the paper book ]. This matter was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee on 16.04.2025. Thereafter the ld. DR seek time to counter these contention and prayed that he want to take the report of the ld. AO and with the consent of the parties the time was given to the ld. DR to have the status report from the AO.

Apropos to this ground the bench noted that the assessee drawn our attention to the following evidence so far as the issue of jurisdiction of the AO is concerned; a. Certificate of Registration issued by the Commercial Tax Department [ page 8 of the paper book ] b. Return of income filed by the assessee on 29.03.2018 [ page 9] c. Computation of income [ page 10-11] d. Aadhar Card [ page 14 ] All the above record suggest that the address of the assessee is Sri Ganganagar and not of the Jaipur. When the notice issued to the assessee by ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur the Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO assessee has raised the issuance of notice stating that it lacs jurisdiction stating that he regularly residence in Sri Ganganagar vide letter dated 09.12.2019 [ page 17 of the paper book ]. The bench noted that this aspect of the matter was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee on 16.04.2025. Thereafter the ld. DR seek time to counter this contention and prayed that he want to take the report of the ld. AO and with the consent of the parties the time was given to the ld. DR to have the status report from the AO. This report of the ld. AO not received when the matter finally heard on 17.09.2025 and the ld. DR fairly admitted that the report of the ld. AO did not received by him. On the aspect of the jurisdiction he relied upon the decision of Kalinga Institure (Supra). Against that decision the ld. AR submitted that in that case before the Apex Court the assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction here the assessee has vide letter dated 09.12.2019. Therefore, on this issue there is binding precedent of our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Channel Kothari vs. CIT [ 35 Taxman 223(Rajasthan) ] where in the court held that ;

5. In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objections as to the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance there of, to be raised. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the department.

Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO Respectfully following that binding precedent we consider the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. The other grounds of appeal becomes academic as we have considered the jurisdictional aspect in this case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10/2025.