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

ITA 399/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 September 2025AY 2017-18200 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues by applying the findings from the lead case, ITA No. 395/JP/2025, mutatis mutandis to the other appeals. Regarding the addition of cash found during the search, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed additional income of Rs. 36,60,103/- during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, referencing various case laws including CIT vs. Tyaryamal Balchand and CIT vs. K.S.M Guruswamy Nadar & Sons, held that the assessee is entitled to set off or telescoping of the additional income disclosed with the cash found. Consequently, the addition made in the assessment order for cash found was directed to be deleted, and this ground of appeal was allowed. For other grounds, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed findings and dismissed the relevant grounds. The appeals for AY 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 were allowed. The appeals for AY 2015-16 and AY 2019-20 were partly allowed, implying that some grounds were allowed and others were dismissed or not pressed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Om Prakash Gupta, filed seven appeals (ITA Nos. 395 to 401/JP/2025) before the ITAT Jaipur Bench against the orders of the CIT(A)-04, Jaipur, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20. 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. The assessment proceedings were initiated following a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act on January 16, 2019. The assessee had filed regular returns and subsequent returns under Section 153A, declaring the same total income in the initial regular return. The disputed amounts pertain to unexplained deposits in the name of Sh. Ram Singh, alleged benami property by Sh. Ram Singh, investment in a partnership firm, invocation of Section 115BBE, and cash found from the assessee's possession.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of passing orders under Section 153A arbitrarily, and whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding appeals solely based on statements and conclusions drawn under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), ignoring the distinct nature and objectives of the Income Tax Act and PBPT Act, and whether additions on account of deposits in Sh. Ram Singh's bank account and assets in the assessee's hands are in accordance with law. (Assessee's contention: The source of money is relevant for income tax proceedings, and since the money did not flow from the assessee, the additions are not in accordance with law). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of 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. (Assessee's contention: Sh. Ram Singh Meena is separately assessed, and the assessee is not the beneficial owner). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's addition of Rs. 7,94,79,167/- under Section 69, being deposits in Sh. Ram Singh Meena's bank account, by presuming him as the assessee's benamidar, and whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the source of these deposits was duly explained as loans from various companies whose assessments were completed by the AO. (Assessee's contention: No deposit was made by the assessee in Sh. Ram Singh's account, and the source of funds was explained). 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's addition of Rs. 16,09,07,018/- under Section 69, alleging it as investment in benami properties and unexplained investment, solely based on Sh. Ram Singh Meena's retracted statements, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on Sh. Ram Singh Meena's statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice, and whether the CIT(A) erred in holding Sh. Ram Singh Meena as the assessee's benamidar by ignoring vital evidence and the fact that registered and beneficial ownership lies with Sh. Ram Singh Meena. (Assessee's contention: Statements were retracted and not subject to cross-examination; ownership lies with Sh. Ram Singh Meena). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in issuing directions for the assessee to verify entries in bank statements vis-à-vis sale deeds before the AO, which pertain to a third party (Sh. Ram Singh), and whether the CIT(A)'s observation that some properties were sold after the search is factually incorrect. (Assessee's contention: Directions are beyond the assessee's control to fulfill). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's invocation of Section 115BBE(1) arbitrarily. (No specific argument recorded for the revenue on this point).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 132(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(18)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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 ld. CIT(A) because the assessee challenged the order of assessment all dated 17.07.2021, 16.07.2021,15.07.2021 & 03.08.2021

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 →