OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 398/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 September 2025AY 2016-17200 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the ratio of various judgments, allowed the appeal concerning the set-off or telescoping of additional income detected and accepted with respect to the application or investment in cash found during the search and seizure action. The addition made in the assessment order in this regard was directed to be deleted. For the lead case, ITA No. 395/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14), Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the Id. CIT(A) had already considered all aspects and allowed the set-off of additional income. The Tribunal noted that the facts and grounds in ITA Nos. 396 to 401/JP/2025 were similar to ITA No. 395/JP/2025 and decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis. The specific results for each appeal were: ITA No. 395/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) - Allowed; ITA No. 396/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) - Allowed; ITA No. 397/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) - Partly Allowed; ITA No. 398/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) - Allowed; ITA No. 399/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) - Allowed; ITA No. 400/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) - Allowed; ITA No. 401/JP/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) - Partly Allowed. The principle derived is that additional income disclosed and accepted can be set off against investments or applications of cash found during search, and reliance on PBPT Act findings without independent application of mind in income tax proceedings is questionable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Om Prakash Gupta, filed seven appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 04, Jaipur, dated 28.02.2025. These orders confirmed the assessment orders passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur, under Section 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20. The appeals were consolidated for hearing as they involved inter-related and common issues. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) was conducted on 16.01.2019 at the premises of Om Agarwal Group, Jaipur, leading to the centralization of the assessee's case. A notice under Section 153A was issued to the assessee on 21.09.2020. The assessee filed a return of income under Section 153A on 01.02.2021, declaring a total income of Rs. 73,27,660, which was the same as his regular return filed under Section 139.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in passing orders under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily, and in deciding appeals solely on the basis of statements and conclusions drawn under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), ignoring that income tax proceedings require the source of money to be relevant, which was not flowing from the assessee, thus additions on account of deposits in Sh. Ram Singh's bank account and purchase of assets in the assessee's hands are not in accordance with law (Section 153A, Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in holding the assessee as the beneficial owner of lands acquired and bank accounts maintained by Sh. Ram Singh Meena, ignoring that Sh. Ram Singh Meena is separately assessed to tax, and in making additions of Rs. 7,94,79,167/- and Rs. 16,09,07,018/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by presuming Sh. Ram Singh Meena as a benamidar, despite the source of funds being explained as loans from companies whose assessments were completed, and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination of Sh. Ram Singh Meena (Section 69, Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 3. Whether the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily. Assessee's Contentions: - The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment orders passed under Section 153A and in relying on PBPT Act findings without independent application of mind. - The source of money is relevant in income tax proceedings, and the additions made are arbitrary as the funds did not flow from the assessee. - Sh. Ram Singh Meena is separately assessed, and he should not be treated as a benamidar. - Additions on account of deposits in Sh. Ram Singh's bank account and investments in benami properties are not sustainable as the source of funds was explained and statements of Sh. Ram Singh were retracted. - The assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination, violating natural justice principles. - The Id. CIT(A)'s directions to verify entries pertaining to a third party (Sh. Ram Singh) are beyond the assessee's control. - The Id. CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 115BBE(1). Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue regarding these grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 115BBE(1),Section 132(1),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Hearing: 20/08/2025Pronounced: 18/09/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

The present bunch of seven appeals have been filed by the above- named assessee, as the assessee was aggrieved from the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 04, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 dated 28.02.2025. That order was passed by Id. CIT(A) because the assessee challenged the order of ITA Nos. 395 to 401/JP/202

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 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →