VIVEK SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

5. That on the facts and in law the Id. CIT (A) failed to provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and substitute one OR more grounds of appeal as and when necessary.

In response, the assessee has filed his return on 29.04.2021. The ld.

AO noted that as the assessee failed to submit the ITR within 30 days from the date of notice u/s 148, the ITR so submitted u/s 148 wastreated as non- est. There after notice u/s 142(1) of the LT. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 21.02.2022 asking assessee to file necessary details on the points as asked for the notices issued. The assessee submitted reply contending that the assessee had taken a borrowing of Rs. 10,00,000/- in installments on various dates from Lokendra Sharma S/o Durga Prashad Sharma with a promise to return it in forth coming 2-3 years. He also submitted that the assessee was in receipt of the outstanding rent of Rs.9,00,000/-which was due from the year 2001-05. the same was thoroughly examined and found that assessee is trying to mislead the facts. Submission of the assessee was not accepted. A show cause notice to that effect was issued to assessee asking him as to why Rs. 20,00,120/-will not be added his total income. In reply, assessee, on 16.03.2022, the assessee submitted some further documents, to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan giver Shri Lokendra Sharma and tenant Mahavir Sharma. Ld. AO noted that the considering the reasons recorded the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted on face value.

While holding so, he also noted that the assessee could not furnish sufficient documents in support of creditworthiness of the person giving the loan and the outstanding rent has not been offered as income in the current year as well i.e. the year of receipt as rent is taxable on receipt basis.

Hence, cash deposited to the tune of Rs.20,00,120/- was treated as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act, and accordingly, added as such.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Apropos of the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is reiterated here in below:

“5. Decision:

5.1During the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee was served four notices on following dates 07.01.2025, 22.01.2025, and 21.05.2025 to submit evidence and substantiate his claim wherein the compliance dates were 16.01.2025, 06.02.2025 and 27.05.2025 the notices served on the email-id which was given in Form no 35 i.e viveksharma121977@gmail.com. Which was duly served. Screenshot of the same is attached herewith. The assessee had failed to respond in any of the notices.

5.2 From the above para, It is observed that the appellant has neither furnished any reply to the notices nor sought any adjournment or extension of time. Furthermore, no factual or legal submissions or supporting evidencehave been provided to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appellant's failure to cooperate contravenes the principles of natural justice and fair play, which demand that an assessee must actively participate in the proceedings and furnish necessary evidence to support its case.

5.3 It is well-settled law that the onus of establishing the grounds of appeal and providing sufficient evidence lies squarely on the appellant. The courts have consistently held that an appellant cannot be permitted to rest on vague or unsubstantiated claims, and the duty to produce evidence in support of one's case rests primarily on the appellant.

5.4 While the principles of natural justice mandate that an opportunity to be heard must be provided, this right is subject to the condition that the party availing such an opportunity must actively participate and produce relevant evidence. It is underscored by various courts that the right to be heard must be meaningful and effective, which presupposes cooperation and responsible conduct from the party concerned.

5.5 In light of the above, the appellant's failure to respond, furnish evidence, or substantiate their grounds demonstrates a lack of bona fide effort to prosecute the appeal. The appellant's neglect to cooperate and substantiate their case undermines the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication. Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive response or evidence, and considering the

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Before making submissions in regard to all the grounds of appeal the appellant craves leave to furnish herewith brief facts of the case. These brief facts form part of the paper book being filed herewith simultaneously. SUBMISSIONS IN REGARD TO ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL After submitting facts of the case the appellant craves leave to make submissions in regard to each ground of appeal. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.

1. This ground of appeal is against passing of arbitrary and unjust impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) upholding the additions made by the AO in the relevant assessment order. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:

1. The impugned order is not a speaking order and accordingly liable to be cancelled.

2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to make any enquiry before sustaining the additions of Rs. 20,00,120 made by the AO. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2, 3 and 4

All these three grounds of appeal are against sustaining by the ld. CIT(A) additions of Rs. 20,00,120 made by the AO as unexplained cash deposit made by the assessee in his bank account on different dates during the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 relevant to AY 2013-14 i.e. year under appeal. As regards source of total cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,120 made by the assessee in his bank account, the assessee’s explanation is as under:

1. The assessee is employed with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure limited and during the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 his total income from salary amounted to Rs. 7,84,590. Besides he has income from interest amounting to Rs. 1,11,856.

2. During the previous year ended on 31/03/2013 relevant to AY 2013-14 a total cash amount of Rs. 20,00,120 was deposited by him in his bank account on different dates. The source of these cash deposits is explained as under: (a) In the relevant previous year he, the assessee, borrowed in piecemeal different cash amounts on various dates falling in the relevant previous year ended on 31/03/2013 i.e. during the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 totaling to Rs. 10,00,000 from his remote relative cum close friend Shri Lokendra kumar Sharma (an agriculturist) s/o Shri Durga Prasad, r/o village Kheda Sandhan, Achhnera, Agra, Uttar Pradesh. (b) Towards his identity, credit worthiness and genuineness, the assessee is enclosing herewith a confirmation in the nature of an affidavit duly signed by Shri Lokendra Sharma as well as by the assessee himself. Besides copy of PAN card of lokendra sharma is enclosed. (c) Further, during the financial year 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 relevant to subject assessment year, the assessee also received a total amount of Rs. 9,00,000 in cash from one Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma towards outstanding rent in regard to agriculture land of assessee given to Mahaveer Prasad Sharma on rent for using the agriculture land for agriculture purposes by him since last many years. This agricultural land belongs to assessee’s ancestors, namely his grandfather Dhanesh Chand and his father Rajendra Mohan Sharma, and it is situated at village Ram Nagar in Bharatpur District. A copy of court decision mentioning that Shri Dhanesh Chand and Shri Rajendra Mohan jointly possess and own an agricultural land in Ram Nagar, Bharatpur is enclosed. (d) Besides an affidavit in the nature of confirmation duly signed by above named Mahaveer Prasad Sharma to whom above mentioned agricultural land of assessee is given on rent for doing agricultural operations on the above mentioned agricultural land since last many years, confirming that he (Mahaveer Prasad Sharma) paid a total cash amount of Rs. 9,00,000 to the assessee Vivek Sharma which were due from him for rent of agriculture land for the period 2001 to 2005, is enclosed herewith. Besides a copy of PAN card of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma is also enclosed.

3. In the relevant previous year ended on 31/03/2013 relevant to AY 2013-14, assessee also took a cash loan of Rs. 1,15,000 on 11/05/2012 from one Smt. Sharda Devi w/o Late Shri Shyam Babu. A confirmation in the nature of affidavit signed by Sharda Devi is enclosed. Out of this amount of Rs. 1,15,000, the assessee deposited a cash amount of Rs. 1,00,120 in his bank account during the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013. Towards identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan of Rs. 1,15,000 taken from above named Sharda Devi, r/o village Kheda Sandhan, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, an affidavit duly signed and sworn by Sharda Devi, proof of agricultural income of Sharda Devi in the nature of a Sale Memo dated 09/04/2012 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bharatpur, Rajasthan and a copy of her account of Bhulekh (U.P.) confirming of her holding and possessing of agricultural land is enclosed. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

NO. 5 This ground of appeal is against not providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the impugned order. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:

1. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not issuing notice of hearing to the assessee before passing the arbitrary and unjustified impugned order and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be cancelled.

2. As per the ld. CIT(A) three notices of hearing were issued to the appellant fixing the date of hearing for 16/01/2025, 06/02/2025 and 27/02/2025. As per the assessee he did not receive any notice in the month of January and February 2025 but he received last notice of hearing fixing the date 27/05/2025.

3. That on 27/05/2025 the assessee requested for adjournment for the date 11/06/2025 on the income tax website. In its proof a copy of screenshot of the same i.e. of the adjournment request sought up to 11/06/2025 is enclosed and it forms part of the paper book.

4. On assessee’s request the ld. CIT(A) was good enough to grant adjournment up to 06/06/2025 by way of issuing another notice of hearing under section 250 under DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2025-26/1076546986(1) dated 29/05/2025 in respect of assessee’s appeal no. NFAC/2012-13/10121419 for AY 2013-14 against order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act dated 24/03/2022. Copy of this notice under section 250 of the IT Act fixing the date of hearing 06/06/2025 is enclosed and it forms part of the paper book being filed simultaneously.

5. However, the ld. CIT(A) without waiting for the date of hearing fixed by himself for the date 06/06/2025, erroneously passed the impugned ex-parte order under section 250 of the IT Act on 30/05/2025 dismissing assessee’s appeal by observing in last three lines of Para 5.5 of the impugned order, which read as, “Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive response or evidence, and considering the appellant’s apparent disinterest in pursuing the appeal, the same is deemed devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed”.

NO.

6. This ground of appeal is of general nature and may please be decided accordingly.

6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions:

Page Nature of Paper Sr. No. No. 1. 01-04 Written Submissions 2. Statement of Facts 05-07 3. Affidavit and Pan card of Lokendra Kumar Sharma, Loan creditor 08-09 4. Copy of SDO court order, Bharatpur with annexure containing the proof of 10-17 joint ownership of assessee's ancestors owning agricultural land in Ram Nagar 5. Affidavit and Pan card of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma to whom agricultural 18-19 land of assessee given on rent 6. Copy of Affidavit in the nature of confirmation of Sharda Devi and copy of 20-22 sale memo in support of sale of agricultural product and copy of Bhulekh Account details 7. Copy of Screen shot of Adjournment request 23 8. Copy of notice notice issued under section 250 by CIT(A) fixing the date 24-27 06/06/2025 9. Reply to notices issued under section 142(1) 28-32 10. Bank statements 33-42

Not only, that the time for compliance was given by the ld. CIT(A) upto 06.06.2025 vide another notice dated 29.05.2025, but for the reasons best known to Ld. CIT(A), the order was passed on 30.05.2025 which is against the principles of natural justice.

Referring to para 4 of the assessment order read with page 18 of the paper book being the receipt of the money received by the assessee for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-from Shri Lokendra Sharma and also copy of PAN card was placed on record [ page19 of the paper book ].Ld. AO did not consider those evidence as sufficient and did not conduct any independent enquiry to rebut the contention of the assessee. The above information was submitted vide covering letter dated 15.03.2022 to the ld. AO.

As regards the contention of the rent income the assessee submitted that the income was for the period 2001-2005 and the same cannot be contention of the receipt of the rent the assessee vide covering letter dated 15.03.2022 (in para 3) submitted that land was given from the time of his grandfather and the land was continue with them.The assessee in support of this receipt filed an affidavit and receipt, vide covering letter dated 15.03.2022. Based on that information already on record, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.

The brief facts relating to the dispute are that the assessee being an individual filed his regular return of income declaring income at Rs.7,71,450/-. As there was information from the Investigation wing, Jaipur that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.20,00,120/- in the bank account No. 18451930000729 maintained with HDFC Bank during the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to Α.Υ.2013-14. When verified with the record ld.

AO noted that the assessee had shown only one bank account which was maintained in YES Bank Limited in the ITR for the relevant period. Hence the cash deposit was not offered to tax. Accordingly, it was reason to believe that the said amount of income of the assessee from undisclosed case of the assessee was re-opened as per provision of section 147 of the Act and thereby notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2021. In response, the assessee has filed his return on 29.04.2021. The ld. AO noted that as the assessee failed to submit the ITR within 30 days from the date of notice u/s 148, the ITR so submitted u/s 148 was treated as non-est.

The bench noted that and confronted this finding with reference to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court extending all the deadline the ld. DR did not dispute and thereby the action of the ld. AO treating the ITR filed as non est was in contravention of the guidelines of the Apex Court. Be that it may ld. AO in that proceeding issued statutory notices to the assessee asking the assessee to file necessary details on the points of deposit of cash into the bank account and the source thereof.

The assessee submitted reply contending that the assessee had borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- in installments on various dates from Lokendra Sharma S/o Durga Prashad Sharma with a promise to return it in forth coming 2-3 years. He also submitted that the assessee was in receipt during F.Y. 2012-13, of the outstanding rent of Rs.9,00,000/-which was due from the year 2001-05. When confronted to the ld. DR about the placing of these details on record and as is available on record of the ld. AO., Ld. DR comments of the ld. AO on or before the 15.09.2025 when the matter was heard on 28.08.2025. As per report from the registry, ld. AO preferred to remain silent till 23.09.2025. Therefore, we find that these documents of the assessee were to be considered in the order of the assessment, their filing by the assessee during assessment proceedings, being not in dispute.

Record reveals that the contention of the assessee regarding the source of amount deposited into the bank account is that he had received a borrowing of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Shri Lokendra Sharma with a promise to return it on various dates. To support said contention, the assessee filed the receipt and PAN Card of the said person[ page 18 & 19] of the paper book]. Having that information, no efforts were made by the AO to verify that contention and that was rejected being considered as merely an afterthought.

As regards the receipt of rent of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the period 2001- 05 the assessee filed receipt of Shri Mahvir Prasad Sharma [Page 8 of the paper book] to whom agricultural land of the assessee was given on rent.

The assessee also filed affidavit in confirmation of Ms. Sharda Devi having given a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee thus discharged the onus of proving the source of said money deposited in assessee for the year under consideration. As is evident from the record the assessee filed the said record even though a considerable time had elapsed ever since the transaction took place and the assessee was able to show cause to explain the source and as such those receipts by Shri Lokendra Sharma and Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma and affidavit of Ms. Sharda Devi, respectively, alongwith the supporting evidence so filed, cannot be brushed aside especially when no enquiries were made in the assessment proceedings. As is evident from the record for a sum of Rs.9.00 lacs receipt duly signed by both parties and got attested from Notary Public was filed before the AO which is placed on record at page 8 of the paper book. We also note that similar type of receipt duly signed by Shri Lokendra Sharma and the assessee was also placed on record at Page 18 of the paper book. The veracity of the contents of these receipts cannot be doubted where AO has not examined the veracity or otherwise of the notorised receipt confirming the receipt of Rs.9.00 lacs and Rs.10.00 lacs by the assessee. Thus, when both the parties duly confirmed the transactions, how the addition could be made alleging an unexplained money in the hands of the assesses. Therefore, we have no reason to sustain that addition of Rs. 20,00,120/- as unexplained cash deposit and no. 2 & 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground no. 1 & 6 raised by the assessee being general do not require our findings. Ground no. 3, being consequential in nature does not require our findings. Ground no. 5 that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide opportunity, has been discussed above.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /09/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/09/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Vivek Sharma, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Ward-01, Bharatpur 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 897/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत