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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.897/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AOBPS1390A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by:Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 28/08/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short ‘NFAC’] passed u/s 250
of the Act on 30.05.2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) has arisen because the assessee challenged the order of the assessment dated 24.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s
144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Assessing Officer[
for short AO] before him.

2
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. That on the facts and in law the impugned ex-parte appellate order passed by the Id. CIT (A) on 30/05/2025 dismissing the assessee's appeal is most arbitrary, unjust, not maintainable and void in law and liable to be cancelled.
2. That on the facts and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions of Rs. 20,00,120/- made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, which sustaining of the additions of Rs. 20,00,120/- by the learned CIT(A) are most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact and in law and in the alternative highly excessive w.r.t facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That the learned CIT(A) firstly erred in sustaining the invoking of provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act by the AO and thereafter further erred in sustaining the levy of tax @ 60% plus surcharge thereon @ 25% on the abovementioned additions of Rs. 20,00,120/-, which sustaining by the learned
CIT(A) of invoking of provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act by the AO and levying tax @ 60% plus surcharge @ 25% thereon are most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact and in law and in the alternative highly excessive w.r.t. facts and circumstances of the case.
4. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the learned AO failed to discharge the burden of proof which squarely lay upon him for treating the borrowing of Rs. 10,00,000/-in installments on various dates from Shri Lokendra
Sharma and also the receipts of Rs. 9,00,000/- from Shri Mahavir Sharma towards outstanding rent, both totaling to Rs. 19,00,000/- as unexplained income under section 68 r.w.s section 115BBE of the IT Act.
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.

3
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO maintained with HDFC Bank during the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to Α.Υ.2013-
14. 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 sources had escaped assessment. Based on that reason to believe the 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 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. 4
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
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO 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.

9
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO 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”.
6. That from the above facts, the hon’ble Bench will very kindly appreciate that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and without providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant and under such circumstances the impugned order is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact and in law and liable to be cancelled.
GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6
This ground of appeal is of general nature and may please be decided accordingly.

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 11
9. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was re-opened after almost 7 years even though the assessee had submitted all the details. As regards the contention that the 12
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO return was not filed in time, ld. DR did not controvert the fact that in the year 2021 there was Covid 19 Pandemic and therefore, Hon’ble Apex
Court had extended all the due dates for compliance and therefore, the contention of the AO treating the return as non-est is not correct.
10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide Ground no. 2 & 4 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,00,120/- made by ld. AO. u/s.
68 of the I.T. Act, and the ld. CIT(A), without waiting for the time he had granted to the assessee to file his submission upto 06.06.2025, decided the appeal on 30.05.2025 thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

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

13
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO sources has escaped assessment. Based on that reason to believe the 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

14
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 15
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 16
Vivek Sharma vs. ITO hereby we direct to delete the same. Based on these observations ground 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. 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
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Ward-01, Bharatpur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;djvk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 897/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत