HIRALAL VIJAWAT , BHAWANIMANDI,BHAWANIMANDI vs. ACIT / DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 614/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 August 2025AY 2019-2056 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had admitted to undisclosed income of Rs. 70,00,003/- during the survey proceedings, which included unaccounted cash, excess stock, cash given to debtors, and investment in shop construction. The assessee had offered this income in his return and paid tax at normal rates. However, the AO treated these items as unexplained under Sections 69, 69A, and 69B and applied the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE. The assessee's contention that the excess stock was business income and that the survey statement was given under a mutual understanding was not accepted by the AO due to the lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of business activities. The AO found the assessee's reply unsatisfactory and proceeded to tax the amounts under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The Tribunal, in its decision, has not explicitly stated its finding on each issue or provided detailed reasoning for its decision in the provided excerpt. The operative directions and the specific relief granted are also not detailed in this portion of the judgment. The judgment is incomplete.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hiralal Vijawat, is an individual engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of cloth and sarees. For Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed an Income Tax Return declaring a total income of Rs. 75,87,380/-. A survey action under Section 133A was conducted on January 16, 2019. During the survey, discrepancies were found between physical stock/cash and the books of accounts, along with incriminating documents. The assessee admitted to undisclosed income of Rs. 70,00,003/- during the survey, which included unaccounted cash, excess stock, cash given to debtors, and investment in shop construction. This amount was offered for taxation in the return and tax paid at normal rates. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 115BBE, treating the additional income under Sections 69, 69A, and 69B as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee is in appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order dated March 31, 2025, which arose from the AO's order dated September 30, 2021, passed under Section 143(3).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 30.09.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons, and hence liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act by treating additional income admitted during survey as unexplained income under Section 69C, and wrongly assessing it under 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Income from Business and Profession'. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of tax, surcharge, and cess as per Section 115BBE of the Act, which the assessee contends is contrary to law, facts, and without jurisdiction. 4. Whether the AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: - The order under Section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. - The additional income should be treated as Business Income, not Income from Other Sources, and Section 115BBE should not be invoked. The assessee argued that the excess stock was considered current year business income and that the survey statement was given without full attention, with a mutual understanding that it would be considered normal income. They denied any option to tax income under Section 115BBE or Sections 69/69A/69B. - The imposition of tax under Section 115BBE is contrary to law, facts, and jurisdiction, and the tax liability should be deleted. - Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D is wrongly charged and should be deleted. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, other than the AO's actions which were upheld by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 115BBE,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, B JAIPUR

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

For Appellant: Adv. (VC)
Hearing: 23/07/2025Pronounced: 21/08/2025

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/08/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Hiralal Vijawat, Bhawanimandi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Kota 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 614/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →