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

ITA 820/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 July 2025AY 2019-2041 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. Regarding the additions made on account of unexplained money under Section 69A and the related interest/commission, the Tribunal noted that the 'UDB' Excel sheet was not in the assessee's name, nor was there specific mention by Radha Mohan Maheshwari that the assessee carried out these transactions. Crucially, Ajit Singh, in his letter dated 10.06.2022, accepted the transactions as his own in an individual capacity, stating they did not relate to family members or group companies. This letter was not controverted by the AO with tangible material. The Tribunal observed that the same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity, especially when the company M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. was also reopened based on the same facts. The Tribunal found the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) to be contrary to the facts and principles of taxation. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 66,58,055/- and the consequential additions of interest/commission were directed to be deleted. The technical grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and not decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar, is challenging five orders from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)), for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. These orders upheld reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessments were based on information recovered during a search at the premises of Radha Mohan Totla, a finance broker. An Excel sheet named 'UDB' was found, containing details of cash and cheque transactions, including interest and commission components. The AO treated certain advances and interest as unexplained income of the assessee. The CIT(A) partially granted relief by applying the peak credit theory. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of reassessment and the additions made.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were legally valid, considering the assessee's contention that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and without an independent reason to believe income had escaped assessment, and that the CIT(A) erred in confirming it? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of not providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of third-party information before drawing adverse inferences, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's observation that the 'UDB' Excel sheet belonged to the assessee, despite the assessee's name and PAN not being mentioned, and no handwriting identification was done? (Mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made on account of peak balance of transactions amounting to Rs. 66,58,055/- for AY 2015-16, when the assessee disowned the entries and Ajit Singh had accepted these transactions in his individual capacity? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The reopening was arbitrary and based on borrowed satisfaction. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment without independent belief. The assessee was denied natural justice by not being allowed cross-examination. The 'UDB' Excel sheet does not pertain to the assessee. The additions were made on the basis of a letter from Ajit Singh, which the assessee had not filed and disowned the transactions. The same income cannot be taxed in multiple entities. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),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 a

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 →