DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GYAN CHAND AGARWAL, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 666/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15
Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax
Central Circle-1,
B-14, Heera nagar, Shipara Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCD7890D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 665/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15
Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax
Central Circle-1,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMPA9797J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
These two appeals were filed by the Revenue arising from the order of CIT(A)-Jaipur 4, in the case of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal (ITA No.
665/JPR/2025) and M/s Dhanlaxmi Enclaves Private Limited (ITA No.
ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2025
Dhanlaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., jaipur.
2
666/JPR/2025) dated 28.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 respectively, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. In both the appeals the common issue is involved, as the same addition has been made on protective basis in the hand of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal and substantive basis in the hand of M/s Dhanlaxmi Enclaves Private Limited.
Therefore, both these appeals are adjudicated by this single order.
3.1
In ITA No. 665/JPR/2025, the Revenue has raised following:-
“1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,28,00,000/- made by the Assessing
Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax
Act by disregarding the evidence indicating that the loan was channeledthrough shell companies M/s Wellworth Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and Desire Vincome Pvt. Ltd to introduce unaccounted money into the assessee’s books of accounts.
The applicant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”
1 In ITA No. 666/JPR/2025, the Revenue has raised following:-
“1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,28,00,000/- made by the Assessing
Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax
Act by disregarding the evidence indicating that the loan was channeled through shell companies M/s Wellworth Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and Desire
Vincome Pvt. Ltd to introduce unaccounted money into the assessee’s books of accounts.
The applicant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”
ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2025
Dhanlaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., jaipur.
3
4
At the beginning of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. A.R. brought to our notice that both the appeals filed by the revenue are defective and deserve to be rejected in lamine as the ground taken by the revenue challenging the deletion of addition by CIT (A) is completely irrelevant to the issues involved in the case. The issue involved in the case is whether the assessee received unaccounted payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in cash from Shri Raju Sharma against sale of plots on the basis of copy of agreement found & seized during search on Raju Sharma Group at Page 43 to 45 of Exhibit-11 of Annexure-AS, which was never acted upon and the assessee was also not owner of the plots.
As against this issue the revenue has raised ground challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,28,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68. It was pointed out that the grounds so taken by the revenue are not at all pertaining to the case of the assessee and have no correlation with the facts of the case of the assessee or findings given by ld AO or CIT(A). It was submitted by ld AR that both the appeals filed by the revenue are defective and should be rejected on this count as non-maintainable. On being asked by the bench from Ld. CIT D.R.
regarding this defect, he admitted that the ground raised in appeal memos has no relation with the facts of the case and findings of AO/CIT(A). The ld CIT DR submitted that an opportunity to re-file the appeal should be allowed to the revenue.
ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2025
Dhanlaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., jaipur.
4
We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. After hearing to both the parties, it is undisputedly clear that the grounds taken in both the appeals by the revenue have no bearing and correlation with the facts of the case or findings of AO and CIT(A). In our considered opinion this defect is serious defects and the same cannot be considered as curable defects. Therefore, the liberty cannot be allowed to revenue to re-file the appeal more so when the time to file the appeal has already been expired. Therefore, the both the appeals as filed by the revenue is declared as defective on account of irrelevant ground of appeal taken in appeal memos and thus not maintainable. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed on this account. 6. Although, we have rejected the appeal treating the same as defective, however, in the interest of the justice and to avoid repetitive litigation, we are deciding the issue involved in both the cases on merit also and for this purpose we are first taking up the case of M/s Dhan Laxmi Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 666/JPR/2025) as in this case the addition has been made on substantive basis. 6.1 The ld. CIT(A) has stated the relevant facts in his order at Page 37 and the same not controverted by both the parties. Therefore, for the sake of ready reference the facts narrated by CIT (A), is reproduced as under: - “The brief facts as per assessment order are that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried out on 02-08-2017 at the various premises of Raju Sharma Group, Jaipur. Residential premises of Shri Raju Sharma, who is the key persons of this group was also covered.
ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2025
Dhanlaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., jaipur.
5
During the course of search & seizure operation copy of agreement dated 21.06.2013
executed between Shri Raju Sharma and Shri Gyan Charid Agarwal as a Director of the assessee company was found and seized as page No. 43 to 45 to Exhibit-11 of Annexure-AS.
As noted by the ld. AO, the said document was signed by the seller party i.e. by appellant through the Director Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal. As per this agreement dated
21.06.2013 an amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in cash was received by Shri Gyan Chand
Agarwal as a Director on behalf of appellant company against sale consideration of three Plots (Plot Mo. E-702, 703 and EC-101) measuring total land of Rs. 25,83,.81
sq. yards situated at Narayan Vihar Scheme, Village Asarpura, Tehsil, Sanganer,
Jaipur.”
6.2
Relying on the above seized agreement dated 21.06.2013 the Ld. A.O.
made the addition of Rs. 3,00,000,00/- in the hands of Dhanlaxmi Enclaves Pvt
Ltd on substantive basis and the same addition was also made in the hands of shri Gyan Chand Agarwal on protective basis. The concluding finding of Ld.
A.O., as given in the case of Dhanlaxmi Enclaves Pvt Ltd is at Para 5.2 of the assessment order, wherein the Ld. A.O. held as under: -
“On a plain reading of the above document it can clearly be deduced that each and every detail in respect to the transaction is clearly been mentioned such as area of each plot as well as consolidated area, further it has also been mentioned that the documents in respect to these plots are also handed over to the purchase i.e. Shri Raju
Sharma S/o Chote Lal Sharma. Further, it is a common practice of real estate business that only agreement of sale is executed and as and when the actual buyer who want to get the document registered the same got registered with the Stamp authorities i.e. with respective Sub-