Mali Ram Bajiya vs ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mali Ram Bajiya, had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. On information that he had deposited cash of Rs 5,01,400 in his bank account during the financial year 2010-11, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessment order records that the notices under section 142(1) of the Act and the show cause notice were served by speed post, that no return was filed and no compliance was made. The AO completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Act, treating the cash deposit of Rs 5,01,400 as unexplained and adding it under the head income from other sources. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on which a remand report was called for. The remand report records that the assessee sought time, and on 21.10.2024 filed a copy of the jamabandi, submitting that he belongs to a farming family, that he holds agricultural land of about 11 acres and his spouse about 7.5 acres, and that the cash deposited was the proceeds of agricultural produce and old savings. The AO reported that no evidence of sale of crops or of agricultural expenses was furnished. The learned CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidence, observing that the appellant has not submitted any details to prove that he was prevented by convincing reason for not submitting the evidence during the original assessment proceedings. The addition was accordingly confirmed.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts, contrary to provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and liable to be quashed.
• 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147, which is without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio so liable to be quashed as mandatory conditions of section 147 & 148 were not complied with, including valid assumption of jurisdiction.
• 3. Whether the notices u/s 148 was not serviced to the assessee, therefore the whole proceedings is void ab initio.
• 4. Whether the learned AO has erred in passing order u/s 144 without providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, in violation of principles of natural justice.
• 5. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A without appreciating that Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and Proper opportunity was not given at assessment stage.
• 6. Whether the rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A is arbitrary and unjustified, hence entire order is liable to be quash.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sh. Madan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Faridabad

• Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Balasaheb Pundlikrao Ghormode v/s Income Tax Officer

  Nagpur bench

• M.S. Stock Investment P. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Pawan Kumar Vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Shri. Kishore Tarachand vs. ITO

  Bangalore bench