IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR.

BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tarun Muradia Vs. The DCIT

1, Kesar Kunj, New Bhupalpura Central Circle-1, Udaipur Udaipur PAN No.: ABQPM3342Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), Udaipur-2, dated 23.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1.1 The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 1961 dated 31.05.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed.

1.2 The search action taken u/s 132and consequent proceedings are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons, against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid.

illegal, and bad in law hence liable to be quashed.

1.3 The Id CIT(A) has also erred in passing the exparty order without Providing the opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence liable to be quashed.

2. Rs.4,53,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs.4,53.000/-on account of alleged suppressed rental income ignoring the other material and facts. The addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice.hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A. B.C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.

4. That the appellant prays your honour indulgence to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

2. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee earned business, rental and interest income during the year. In this case, a search and seizure action u/s 132took place against the assessee and his group on 03.01.2019. Consequently, the AO issued notice u/s 153A on 17.01.2020. In response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,09,940/- on 29.01.2020 During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO inquired about seized material found in the form of loose papers and other details, to which the assessee submitted written replies and filed relevant documents. The ld. AO made addition of Rs.4,53,000/- on account of alleged suppressed income of rent and completed the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3)

at Rs.7,62,940/-

3. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)on legal grounds as well as on facts. He challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and addition made by him. On facts, the assessee pleaded before the CIT (A) that the rental receipts pertained to Harsh Hospitality, to whom the building had been rented out by his son, Chirag Murdia and in respect of which the relevant rent deeds were found & seized du