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

ITA 400/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 September 2025AY 2018-19200 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal were broadly categorized into issues concerning the validity of section 153A proceedings, additions on account of unexplained deposits and benami properties, and the invocation of section 115BBE. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's actions without independent application of mind, relying heavily on information from the PBPT Act and statements of Sh. Ram Singh Meena, which were allegedly retracted and not cross-examined. The assessee also argued that Sh. Ram Singh was a separate assessee and the source of funds in his accounts was explained. The Tribunal acknowledged the commonality of issues across the appeals and the agreement to treat one appeal as a lead case. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the Tribunal's findings or reasoning on these issues, nor does it state the operative directions or the final result. The judgment is incomplete in this regard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Om Prakash Gupta, is in appeal against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 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 sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated as the issues were inter-related and common. A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 16.01.2019. The assessee's case was centralized to the DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur. A notice under section 153A was issued, and the assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs.73,27,660/-, which was the same as his regular return filed earlier. Statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in passing orders under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily, and in deciding appeals based solely on statements and conclusions drawn under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), without independently applying his mind, given that the provisions of the Income Tax Act and PBPT Act are different. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's additions on account of deposits in the bank account of Sh. Ram Singh and purchase of assets in the assessee's hands, by presuming Sh. Ram Singh as a benamidar and the assessee as the beneficial owner, despite Sh. Ram Singh being separately assessed to tax and the source of funds in his account being explained as loans from companies whose assessments were completed by the AO. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's addition of Rs.7,94,79,167/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being deposits in Sh. Ram Singh Meena's bank account, by presuming him as a benamidar, when no deposits were made by the assessee in Sh. Ram Singh's account. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's addition of Rs.16,09,07,018/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as investment in benami properties, based solely on the retracted statements of Sh. Ram Singh Meena, without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, and by ignoring evidence that registered and beneficial ownership lies with Sh. Ram Singh Meena. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in issuing directions for the assessee to get entries in bank statements verified against registered sale deeds before the AO, which pertain to a third party (Sh. Ram Singh) and are beyond the assessee's control. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) acted arbitrarily, relying on PBPT Act conclusions and statements without independent application of mind. They contended that the Income Tax Act and PBPT Act have different objectives and that the source of money is relevant under the Income Tax Act. Additions on account of deposits in Sh. Ram Singh's account and assets in the assessee's hands were not in accordance with law. They argued that Sh. Ram Singh was separately assessed and the source of funds in his bank account was explained. The additions were based on retracted statements of Sh. Ram Singh without cross-examination, violating natural justice. They also argued that Sh. Ram Singh was the registered and beneficial owner of properties. The directions for verification of bank entries against sale deeds were beyond the assessee's control. The invocation of section 115BBE(1) was arbitrary. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the revenue on each issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 ld. CIT(A) because the assessee cha

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 →