Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Pradeep Nimawat,Udaipur vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Udiapur on 25 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sr. No. ITA Nos. Asst. Appellant Respondent PAN No.
Year
1. 407/Jodh/2023 2012-13 Pradeep Nimawat ITO Ward 2(1) ADZPN
& & 157, Krishnanpura, Udaipur 1060 H
255/Jodh/2024 2017-18 Udaipur - 313001
2. 263, 264, 265 & 2016-17 Piyush Jain ITO Ward 2(1) AFZPJ
266/Jodh/2025 5, Laxmi Market, Udaipur 9334 G
Inside Nada Khada,
Udaipur - 313001
Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, CA (Physical)
Revenue By Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo, CIT-DR
(Virtual)
Sr. No. ITA Nos. Asst. Appellant Respondent PAN No.
Year
3. 207/Jodh/2026, 2016-17 Keshu Lal Nimawat ITO Ward 2(1) ADZPN
157, Old kalpna Udaipur 1057 C
267,268 & Nursing Home,
269/Jodh/2025 Krishnapura,
Udaipur - 313001
4. 279 & 2016-17 Krishna Kant ITO ADGPB
280/Jodh/2025 Bagora Rajsamand 6787 J
Telion Ka Talab,
Shri Nath Nagar,
Nathdwara,
Rajsamand -
313301
Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, CA (Physical)
Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Date of Hearing 18.02.2026.
Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2026.
2
ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others.
Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
ORDER
PER BENCH:
These captioned appeals have been filed by different assessees against the separate order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as NFAC/CIT(A)] where the appellant assessee has raised common issue on identical facts and therefore these appeals were heard together and decided by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee has stated that the addition were made by AO without appreciating the fact that the alleged fraudulent bank transactions in the bank account opened in the name of appellant and carried out by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA and his group by misusing the KYC. The AR has furnished summary of the common appellant assessees which are listed in tabular form here under:
S. Name of the Assessee ITA No. A.Y. Issue No. 1. Pradeep Nimawat ITA/407/Jodh/2023 2012-13 2. Pradeep Nimawat ITA/255/Jodh/2024 2017-18 3. Keshu Lal Nimawat ITA/267/Jodh/2025 2016-17 4. Keshu Lal Nimawat 2016-17 Deposits in bank as 5. Keshu Lal Nimawat ITA/268/Jodh/2025 2016-17 unexplained money 6. Keshu Lal Nimawat ITA/269/Jodh/2025 2016-17 u/s 69A and profit 7. Krishna Kant Bagora ITA/280/Jodh/2025 2016-17 @ 8% on these 8. Krishna Kant Bagora ITA/279/Jodh/2025 2016-17 deposits 9. Krishna Kant Bagora ITA/279/Jodh/2025 2016-17 10. Piyush Jain ITA/263/Jodh/2025 2016-17 11. Piyush Jain ITA/265/Jodh/2025 2016-17 12. Piyush Jain 2016-17 3 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
3. The ld. AR requested at bar that the case in ITA No. 407/Jodh/2023 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 may be taken as a lead case for the discussion of facts and adjudication of the issues on identical facts and the ITA No. 407/Jodh/2023 (Assessment Year 2012-13) is taken as a lead case where the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. That learned CIT "A" has erred in confirming that assessment under section 144 and addition made by AO Rs 23,15,03,767/- is in order. The assessment was made without providing proper opportunity and considering full facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the order passed by learned AO be quashed.
2. That Ld. CIT 'A' erred in confirming of addition of Rs 22,99,59,977/- under section 69A of IT Act income, @ 8% on amounts deposited in bank as Business Receipts. The addition was made without considering full facts of the case and providing proper opportunity. Hence the addition made be deleted.
3. That Ld. CIT 'A' erred in confirming addition of Rs 15,44,186/- as net profit from business & profession. The addition was made without considering full facts of the case and providing proper opportunity. Hence the addition made be deleted
4. That Ld CIT 'A' erred in confirming the action of AO refusing to accept the contention of Appellant that aforesaid return of income is filed by someone else using his KYC documents and receipt and deposit of bank accounts stated therein does not belong to him.
5. That appellant reserves his right to add or amend grounds of appeal." 4 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others.
Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
4. The counsel briefly narrated the fact that assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income u/s 139. The AO has reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 by issuing the notice u/s 148 within the stipulated time by recording the reason that the income declared by the assessee at Rs. 9,36,587/- did not commensurate with the total credits/deposits in the bank account. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO passed a high pitch assessment order without making verification of the facts of the case that to whom these deposits belong, who has opened bank account in the name of the assessee and without verifying the status of the Mr. Bharat Bomb who had filed the return of income by using the KYC of the assessee and admitted these transaction being done by him in the statement on oath before CBI. The AR stated that though the AO issued notice but in some cases the notice were not served but many notice were not served. Thus, some of the cases due compliances were made, during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. AO without carrying out any examination and verification from the bank, about opening of account, deposit slip and the veracity of the alleged deposit resorted to made addition of entire deposit u/s 69A with profit @ 8% on said deposits.
5. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) where the appeal was rejected in summary manner by stating that assessee has filed 5 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others no explanation regarding the un-disclosed amount deposited in the bank account in sustaining the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 22,99,59,977/- u/s 69 and Rs. 15,44,186/- as business profit from liquor receipt @ 8% of the total bank deposits.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by refusing the contentions of the appellant that the aforesaid return of income was filed by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA and his associates by using the appellants KYC documents and that the receipts in deposits of bank account stated therein does not belong to the appellant assessee. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that on the identical facts for the earlier and subsequent assessment years also the return of income were filed on behalf of the appellant by misusing his KYC documents by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA wherein addition made by the Department on the basis of these returns were deleted by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The particulars of the appeals decided by ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in some of the present and connected assessees are listed here under:
S. No. Name of the ITA No. A.Y. Date of Amount of
Assessee Order addition
deleted
1. Nitin Parikh ITA/264/Jodh/2023 2015-16 20.12.2023 1,06,64,900/-
2. Nitin Parikh ITA/263/Jodh/2023 2011-12 20.12.2023 2,01,76,895/-
3. Pradeep ITA/317/Jodh/2023 2011-12 05.03.2023 1,69,01,000/-
Nimawat 6 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
4. Pradeep ITA/318/Jodh/2023 2015-16 05.03.2023 76,25,297/-
Nimawat
5. Urvashi ITA/15/Jodh/2024 2014-15 27.11.2024 16,42,85,492/-
Material Trading Co.
Pvt. Ltd.
6. Urvashi ITA/16/Jodh/2024 2015-16 27.11.2024 2,64,79,350/-
Material
7. Urvashi ITA/18/Jodh/2024 2015-16 27.11.2024 97,73,220/-
Material (penalty)
8. Deepak Wahi ITA/410/Jodh/2023 2016-17 24.06.2025 12,08,19,267/-
(departmental
appeal)
7. The Counsel for the assessee has further argued that the appellants return for assessment year 2015-16 was also picked up for scrutiny. During the course of hearing, the appellant had submitted to the AO that he has not filed the return of income as income was below taxable limits as he was salaried and his return was filed by misusing his KYC by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA after obtaining his digital signatures for use of his own benefits. The Ld. AR has further submitted that appellant assessee also appeared u/s 131 and submitted that this fake return was submitted by Bharat Bomb and he was not aware of any of the returns filed by him. The AR has further submitted that appellant assessee has submitted before the ITAT with respect to assessment year 2011-12 and 2015-16,that all the additions made by AO in the case of the assessee, for the earlier years and subsequent years, considering the fraudulent return filed and bank transaction done by Shir Bharat Bomb, CA by misusing KYC of the assessee and that it was Bharat Bomb who has misused 7 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others the ID proof of the appellant, to open various bank accounts, various trading concerns and obtain loan and brought properties in his name. The Ld. AR has pleaded that the submissions made in the present appeal on each ground of appeal may be considered common submissions to all the captioned appeals. In support the appellant has filed the following documents:
a) Copy of Original Complaint filed be ED
b) Copy of PO Order 04/2016 passed by ED
c) Copy of Statement Recorded before ED/CBI of Bharat Bomb
d) Copy of Reasons Recorded in case of Bharat Bomb by the AO for reopening of Case u/s 147.
e) Copy of Assessment Order of Bharat Bomb for A Y 2011-12
f) Copy of Assessment Order of Bharat Bomb for AY 2016-17 where Bharat Bomb confirmed the fact that he had misused name of assessees for his own benefit and it is he who operated these bank accounts is recorded.
g) Copy of CIT Appeal order in case of Deepak Wahi where on similar facts and circumstance, it was held that Mr. Bharat Bomb operated these account and additions cannot be sustained in the hands of assessee.
h) ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, order dated 05.03.2024 in ITA No. ITA/263/Jodhpur/2023 and ITA/264/Jodhpur/2023 in case of Nitin Parikh where additions made in the hands of assessee are deleted.8
ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others.
Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
i) Copy of Debt Recovery Tribunal Order in case of Canara Bank vs M.s Shrinath Traders (by using sole Proprietor Pradeep Nimawat)
j) Copy of Statement of Pradeep Nimawat Recorded before ED/CBI
k) Copy of Reasons Recorded in case of Pradeep Nimawat Assessment Year 2011-12
8. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the aforementioned said list of documents, the Hon'ble ITAT was pleased to deleted similar additions on identical facts in the case of Nitin Parikh Vs. DCIT Circle 2 in ITA No. 263 & 264/Jodh/2023 dated 20.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2015-16 by observing vide Para 9 on Page No. 12 of the Tribunal Order as under:
"We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that the assessee is usually filing the return below taxable limit. Certainly in the impugned assessment year the assessee's income was raised due to mis-utilization of assessee's return by Mr. Bharat Bomb, CA. The statement recorded by the CA, the report of the ED and also supported by the evidence is clearly indicated that the assessee has suffered fraud due mischievous act of his CA. Further, the practical view is taken by the ld. appellate authority in the case of Mr. Deepak Wahi. The appellate authority had deleted the addition. We find that none of the returned income has any basis or has reality. Mere reflection of the salary on 26AS cannot serve the purpose, where there is no such any direct relevancy of the returned income. The ld. DR also not able to submit any documents or evidence related to 9 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others direct nexus of the returned income of the assessee with the real income. The fact that big fraud was happened, the assessee was victimized by the group of people. We take rationale view, and the additions are duly deleted. In our considered view, the assessment order is itself erroneous due to absence of proper verification and cross verification related to addition during assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order and the assessment order is quashed. "
9. The Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate Jodhpur Bench delivered in the appellants case in ITA No. 317 & 318/Jodh/2023 and that of Urvashi Material Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 15 & 16/Jodh/2024 and ITO Vs. Deepak Wahi in ITA No. 410/Jodh/2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
10. The Ld. AR has further explained with the support of the copy of the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jodhpur passed in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Nakoda Construction Company (Sole proprietor Pradeep Nimawat) OA No. 24 of 2018 (APB Pg. No. 133-136), it was the bank officers and Mr. Bharat Bomb misused the name of the appellant and other persons. The Relevant Para of the Debt Recovery Tribunal reads as under:
"This is a proprietorship firm formed by Bharat Bomb using name of Appellant Pradeep Nimawat a loan of Rs 25.86 Crore was raised. Outstanding on the date OA was Rs 15.44 Crore.10
ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others.
Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others The matter where the credit facilityas claimed in the O.A. in favor of the defendants and the defendants filed an application with bill of exchange Annexure A-3 to A-22. The Most alarming document is Demand Promissory Note as Annexure A-23 of the applications which bears signature of Pradeep Nimawat but the entire details are missing in the Demand Promissory Note, Annexure A-23. Similar is the position of Annexure Hypothecation Agreement running from Page 35 to 54 and this agreement is completely blank even the name of borrower, the account sanctioned details of hypothecation, details of stock, the rate of interest etc. is not mentioned. Even some of the pages are not signed and having seal of the defendants. Annexure A/25 is the Charges and hypothecation deed/agreement is signed by the defendants but again it do not bears the amount so sanctioned, the rate of interest etc. After having pursued the documents I am of the considered view that the demand promissory note and the hypothecation agreement at Annexure A/23 & A/24 are completely blank documents so, for this fault only the bank officers are responsible and not the borrower.
The blank agreement or a blank Demand Promissory note even though signed cannot be used for the purpose of recovery as it is not legally created and executed documents in the eye of law.
According this Original Application stand disposed of as dismissed." 11 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others.
Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others
11. To support the contentions so raised orally, the Ld. AR has filed a written submissions, where the assessee has further placed reliance on the following documentary evidences:
S. Particulars From To
No.
1 ITAT Order in ITA/263 & 264/Jodh/2023 of Nitin Parikh 348 360
dated 05.03.2024
2 ITAT Order in ITA/317-318/Jodh/2023 of the appellant 40 85
himself
3 CBI Special court order dated 18.03.2023 para 55 fact 103
of forging of signature of Pradeep Nimawat
4 Debt Recovery Tribunal Order in case of appellant 133 136
Finding on Para 11,12,13 & 14
135 136
5 PAO Para E confirmation of Bharat Bomb about 141
purchase of property in the name of Pradeep
6 Name of Pradeep Nimawat- Nakoda Construction & 142 144
Rameshwaram and its Bank Acct details
7 Name of Fake firms by Bharat Bomb in the name of 204 205
appellant regarding opening of fake firms
8 Details of property purchased in the name of appellant 207
at S. No. 5
9 Bharat Bomb statement 219 224
10 Flat at Udaipur (para iv S. No. 2) 224
11 Details of persons whose KYC was used name of 225
appellant (Para v & vi)
12. The ld. AR for the assessee has pleaded that the authorities below were not justified in making arbitrary additions and that these additions may be deleted.
13. Per Contra, the Ld. DR he failed to controvert the contentions of the appellant assessee and he did not file any contrary facts or judgments to 12 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others distinguish the decision of the Coordinate Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur relied by the assessee in the present proceedings.
14. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and decisions of Coordinate Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur delivered in the appellant's own case and other connected case on identical facts. It is apparent clear that admittedly the issues raised by the assesees are covered issues on identical facts regarding unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 69A of the Act and trading addition at the rate of 8% on such deposit. It is noted that as an individual who was engaged in service and having income below taxable limits, and that he has not been filing return of income being not having taxable income, for have source of income for such alleged huge deposit in bank a/c's. We find that it was Mr. Bharat Bomb, Chartered Accountant (AC) who has opened bank account and filed return of income by using KYC of the assessee and many other persons as the appellant assessees have been drawing salary at the establishment of CA Bharat Bomb who has been having all the particulars of these assessees such as PAN No., bank account no., KYC no., and digital signatures, etc. which has been used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for his own benefits.
15. In the present case, the appellant had appeared in response to summons u/s 131 issued by the AO and submitted that there was a fake return submitted by Bharat Bomb without his knowledge and he was not aware of 13 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others any detail of filing such return in his name, as he has been non-filer. Thus, the deposits in the alleged bank account did not belong to appellant assessee as the bank account was opened in the Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank by misusing his KYC details by Mr. Bharat Bomb. It is evident from the copy of the FIR lodged by CBI and ED wherein confession of Mr. Bharat Bomb was recorded to the effect that Mr. Bharat Bomb has fraudulently opened such accounts in the name of appellant assessee and other different parties. It is noted that appellant has neither engaged in any business activities other than working as a salaried employee at the establishment of Shri Bharat Bomb. We find that in some of the cases appellants could not file response to the show cause notice issued by the AO as they did not received any of the notices issued by the AO because notices issued by the AO have been issued on the address given in the return of income by Shri Bharat Bomb because he has actually filed the return of the income of the appellant and similar other appellants who has been at his pay role without their knowledge.
16. From the record, it is evident that based on investigation of CBI and ED, a charge sheet has already been filed before respectable Courts and Metropolitan Magistrate CBI-2 in FIR No. RCBD1/2017/E/0001, New Delhi wherein it was clearly held on parity of facts that Mr. Bharat Bomb forged large no. of fake firms, opened dummy bank accounts by using of various KYC's of 14 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others his employees and uploaded fake IT returns, entered into many property sales purchase transactions, and investment fraudulently.
17. The ld. AR for the assessee has drawn our attentions to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein the DRT in the recovery petition filed by the Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 25,86,22,917/- against the assessee observed (APB Pg. No. 363 vide Para 10) that the most alarming document is Demand and Promissory note at Annexure A-23 of the application which bears signatures of Shri Pradeep Nimavat but the entire details are missing in the Demand Promissory Note, Annexure A-23 are completely blank document so, for this fault only the bank officers are responsible and not the borrower. It is noted that the DRT has observed that the name of the firm run by Shri Bharat Bomb by using the KYC document of the assessee and the same name of the firm is referred in the order of the DRT. Meaning thereby, it is beyond doubt that Shri Bharat Bomb was using KYC for making the faults in the name of the fake parties by using digital details of its employee available with him as referred in the order of the ED and the assessee was one of the parties mentioned at serial no. 4.
18. It is noted that during the course of assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in the case of Shri Pradeep Nimawat, statement was 15 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act was recorded on 03.11.2017 and Shri Pradeep Nimawat was specifically asked to inform the details of his bank accounts and sources of cash deposits and FDR's and that while replying to question no. 7 of statements dated 03.11.2017, Shri Pradeep Nimawat categorically submitted that he is having only one bank account in the Bank of India, in Meera Girls College Branch, Udaipur. The appellant assessee further submitted that he came to know about having bank accounts, FDRs, OD Accounts and Home Loan account in his name in the Syndicate Bank, Madhuban, Udaipur and Union Bank of India, Udaipur and Canara Bank, Udaipur only when CBI and ED interrogated him after "Syndicate Bank Scam" Udaipur. It was at that time when the statement of Shri Pradeep Nimawat recorded, it was disclosed that he was employee of Shri Bharat Bomb during the period of cash deposits in the bank accounts opened in his name. He further disclosed that all the bank accounts, except the bank account maintained in the Bank of India which was opened by him whereas all other bank accounts were opened by Shri Bharat Bomb in his name by adopting fraud tactics in obtaining the documents.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the Assessing Officer has also categorically observed in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16 that the total cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant assessee for that year was made by Shri Bharat Bomb. In view of that matter, 16 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others we find no reason as to how the lower authority entitled to tax the same amount in the hands of the assessee even when the Assessing Officer has satisfied that the amounts deposited in the bank account of the assessee is made by Shri Bharat Bomb.
20. In our view, the orders of the lower authorities, the AO in particular making addition in ex-parte manner and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) in summary manner without appreciating the facts of the case is not justified. At this stage, we understand that there is no meaning in sending this case back to either of the lower authorities for further verification because the assessee can be granted justice based on facts already available on record which stands clarified by the investigation carried out in the case of the Syndicate Bank by ED and CBI and the orders of the Directorate of Enforcement. Consequently, Shri Bharat Bomb had already been in imprisonment, for the alleged act of fraudulent for alleged bank transactions and investments in the name of its employees.
21. On the identical facts, similar issues have been decided by Coordinate Bench Jodhpur in the case of Shri Nitin Parikh (supra). Without prejudice to above, it is pertinent to mention that on the similar set of facts, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) in the case of Deepak Wahi vide Para 6.6 has accepted the fact 17 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others that addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee when he has not done this transaction, and that the AO while reopening the case of Shri Bharat Bomb and passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, has given categorical finding that Shri Bharat Bomb has accepted the fact that the alleged cash deposit is done by Shri Bharat Bomb, in the bank account of Shri Pradeep Nimawat.
22. Admittedly, based on investigation of CBI and ED, a Charge Sheethas already been filed before respectable Courts and Special Judge (Metropolitan Magistrate) Jaipur CBI-2 in FIR No. RCBD1/2017/E/0001 Dated 23/03/2017, CBI (BSFC) New Delhi Court wherein it was clearly alleged that the Mr Bharat Bomb formed large no fake firms, open dummy bank accounts by using name of various firms,and its employees including the appellant assesses and uploaded their fake IT Returns showing nominal income knowing the facts that these persons were not filing any return of income as they actually have no taxable income in their hand.
23. The Ld. CIT (A) has merely observed that the AO was justified in holding that bank account No. 84501010007333 of Syndicate Bank, A/c. No. 84501010007333 of Syndicate Bank belonged to the appellant ignoring the fact that the AO has not done due diligence to cross verify the 15CA/CB forms, allegedly issued in the name of the appellant. This form involves three parties 18 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others who are (i) The remitter, (ii) The Chartered Accountant and (iii) The Bank Officer. Once the appellant denied these forms all together, the AO must have summoned the Bank Officer and CA who have signed these forms which the AO failed. On the other hand, the appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened by him and only his name and KYC were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening these bank accounts. Thus, financial transactions appearing as credited in aforesaid bank accounts do not represent the cash deposits as investment of the assessee by any stretch of imagination until and unless department disproves the claim of the assessee by way of bring on record corroborative documentary evidence that the appellant assesse was not a salaried person employed with the establishment of Sh. Bharat Bomb, CA and that the appellant assessee has ever been engaged in some business or industrial activity and that the transactions entered into with other parties by way of purchase/sales invoices, transport receipt, VAT return, signature on cash deposit slips in the alleged bank account maintained in the name of the assessee.
24. It is evident from the record that mostly the Loan obtained on the basis of forged documents. It is apparently clear that accused Bharat Bomb used the names of his relatives, clients, employees and former acquaintances for taking loans. Even in the name of his wife and sister. His wife and sister have stated in 19 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others their statements that they never visited to Syndicate Bank and did not sign any loan document and similarly the clients and former acquaintances and employees of accused Bharat Bomb have also given statements that the loan documents are not signed by them and their signatures were made forged. Accused Bharat Bomb not only made forged loan documents but also used the identity documents of his relatives, clients, employees (including appellants) and former acquaintances to cheat the bank.
25. Thus, the existence bank deposits in the name of appellants and loans in the names of Mr. Bomb's relatives, employees, clients and former acquaintances is itself a fact which is prima facie sufficient to implicate accused Bharat Bomb with the forged documents and offence. In view of the material facts & evidence available on record, Shri Bharat Bomb was be prima facie established, accused by ED and CBI.
26. On parity of facts, the coordinate Jodhpur Bench has deleted additions on identical facts in the following appeals:
1. Nitin Parikh ITA No 263/Jodhpur/2023 & ITA No. 264/Jodhpur/2023, order dated 20.12.2023.
2. Following the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Nitin Parikh (Supra) on similar facts the addition has been deleted by the tribunal in the case of Pradeep Nimawat ITA No. 20 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others 317/Jodhpur/2023 & ITA No. 318/Jodhpur/2023 vide order dated 05.03.2024.
3. Urvashi Material Trading Company Pvt Ltd ITA No15/Jodhpur/2024, ITA No 16/Jodhpur/2024
4. Income Tax Officer Vs. Deepak Wahi in ITA No. 410/Jodh/2023 order dated 24.06.2025.
27. We find substance and merit in the contentions of the appellant that the authorities below were not justified in proceeding against the appellant in arbitrary and mechanical manner to make high pitch assessment without carrying out cross verification of the 15CA/CB forms, allegedly issued in the name of the appellant. It is seen that this form involves three parties who are
(i) The remitter, (ii) The Chartered Accountant and (iii) The Bank Officer. In our view, once the appellant denied these forms all together, the AO must have summoned the Bank Officer and CA who have signed these forms which the AO failed.
28. From the record, it is evident that the appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened by him and only his name and KYC were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening these bank accounts. Meaning thereby that the financial transactions in the form of cash deposits or other appearing as credited in aforesaid bank accounts do not represent the alleged 21 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others investment of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Since, we are of the considered view that disputed amounts appearing as credits in aforesaid bank accounts do not represent the investment of the assessee, there would be no question of trading addition @ 8% as computed by the AO on the deposits in these bank accounts.
29. Considering the factual matrix, and the Judgements of the Coordinate Bench and the Special Court of CBI (Supra), we hold that the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on records. We, therefore, delete the addition made u/s 69A that of profit @ 8% of these deposits. Thus, the ground no 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed.
30. Without prejudice to above, we accept the alternative plea raised by the CIT (DR) as legally justified for direction to the AO u/s 150 of the Act to take necessary action in the hands Shri Bharat Bomb as the alleged amounts of deposits in the aforesaid bank accounts belongs to Shri Bharat Bomb. Accordingly, the AO is directed to initiate proceeding against Shri Bharat Bomb to bring the alleged income under the Tax Net.
31. There are similar issues raised, on identical facts in ITA Nos. 255/Jodh/2024, 263,264,265 & 266/Jodh/2025, 207/Jodh/2026, 267,268 & 269/Jodh/2025, 279 & 280/Jodh/2025 to the issue and facts discussed in ITA No. 407/Jodh/2023 with respect to assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, our 22 ITA Nos. 407/Jodh/2023 & Others. Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others observation and finding given with respect to ITA No. 407/Jodh/2023 shall be applicable to ITA Nos. 255/Jodh/2024, 263,264,265 & 266/Jodh/2025, 207/Jodh/2026, 267,268 & 269/Jodh/2025, 279 & 280/Jodh/2025 mutatis mutandis, ordered accordingly.
32. In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 26/03/2026.
Nimisha Sr. PS
True Copy
Copies to :
(1) The appellant.
(2) The respondent.
(3) CIT
(4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative
(6) Guard File
BY ORDER,