RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 819/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 July 2025AY 2018-1941 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A was contrary to the facts on record and the principles of taxation, as the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity. The Tribunal noted that the excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, Shri Ajit Singh had accepted the transactions in his individual capacity via a letter dated 10.06.2022, and the revenue had also reopened the case of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. based on the same information. The Tribunal found that the AO had not controverted Shri Ajit Singh's letter with tangible material and had not provided the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the additions relating to interest/commission amounting to Rs. 1,58,000/- for AY 2015-16, Rs. 4,92,100/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 4,19,100/- for AY 2017-18, Rs. 6,07,615/- for AY 2018-19, and Rs. 2,95,260/- for AY 2019-20 were also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal considered the appeals on merits and found the technical grounds to be academic. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar, is appealing against five orders of the CIT(A), Delhi, dated 25.04.2025. These orders confirmed reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur (AO), for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. The AO's orders, dated 28.03.2024 and 29.03.2024, made additions based on information recovered from a third party, Radha Mohan Totla, which included an excel sheet named 'UDB'. This sheet allegedly contained cash and cheque transactions, with 'INT' representing interest and 'COM' representing commission. The AO noted that the 'UDB' sheet was found in a folder named 'School Home Work' and that Radha Mohan Totla identified 'UDB' as 'Unique Dream Builders'. A summons was issued to Shri Ajit Singh, father of the assessee and owner of UDB Group, who admitted the transactions belonged to him individually and submitted a letter dated 10.06.2022 confirming transactions totaling Rs. 66,58,055/-. The AO made additions for alleged unexplained advances and interest/commission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law, arbitrary, and based on borrowed satisfaction, especially since the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action without the assessee being afforded an opportunity for cross-examination of the third party and without independently forming a reason to believe income had escaped assessment. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions totaling Rs. 66,58,055/- on account of positive peak balance of transactions noted in the 'UDB' excel sheet, when the assessee denied undertaking these transactions, and Shri Ajit Singh had already owned them in his individual capacity, and the same transactions were also subject to reassessment in the hands of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions related to alleged unexplained interest/commission for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. Assessee's Contentions: - The reopening under Section 147 was arbitrary and based on borrowed satisfaction, violating principles of natural justice as cross-examination was denied. - The 'UDB' excel sheet did not contain the assessee's name or PAN, and handwriting was not identified, yet the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's observation that it pertained to the assessee. - The addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- was erroneous as the assessee disowned the entries, and Shri Ajit Singh had already offered this income. - The same income cannot be taxed in the hands of multiple assessees. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue relied on the statement of Radha Mohan Totla and the information found in the Pen Drive, identifying the assessee through the name and mobile number provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(29)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: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A, Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Hearing: 03/07/2025Pronounced: 25/07/2025

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

By way of present appeal, the above-named assessee challenges the bunch of five orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] all bearing dated 25.04.2025 for five different assessment year starting from assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20. That order of the Id. CIT(A) arise because the assessee has challenged the order of the assessment

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →