SHRI RAMESH CHAND SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), JAIPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 16/JP/2021
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 16/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Ramesh Chand Saini The ITO, Vs. 502 Luhadia Tower V Ashok Marge, Ward -5(4), C-Scheme, Jaipur-302034. Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CKAPS 9331 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pallavi Joshi (Adv.) & Shri S.K. Sharma (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/10/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2020 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard which is against law of natural justice.
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO was erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO was erred in making addition of cash deposit of Rs. 14,36,393/- in Axis Band and Rs. 1,09,000/- in ICICI Bank as undisclosed income 4. The assessee reserves the right to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.”
Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of
the appeal is concluded through video conference.
At the outset, we note that the present has been filed by the
assessee after a gap of more than one year from the date of impugned
order however, the assessee has stated in form no. 36 that the
impugned order has been served on the assessee only 25.03.2021. We
have heard both the parties on the issue of delay if any in filing the
present appeal. Since there was an order of the Department relaxing
the limitation during period of COVId-19 pandemic as well as decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the limitation provided under
general statute i.e. limitation Act under as well as under special statute
during this period ending up to mid October, 2021. Accordingly in the
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO
facts and circumstances of the case the present appeal filed by the
assessee is treated as within a period of limitation.
The assessee is an individual and did not file any return of
income U/s 139 of the Income Tax Act. The AO issued a notice U/s 148
of the Act on 30.03.2018 but there was no return of income filed by the
assessee in response to the notice issued U/s 148 of the Act. The
Assessing Officer has also issued show cause notice U/s 142(1) of the
IT Act asking the assessee to furnish explanation regarding the income
from the activity of trading in commodity as well as source of deposits
made in the bank account of the assesee. The Assessing Officer made
addition for various deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee with
Axis bank and ICICI Bank including interest as well as
commission/brokerage income of Rs. 2,612/- total amounting to Rs.
15,69,474/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has determined the total
income of the assessee at Rs. 15,69,470/- while passing the order U/s
147/144 of the Act. The assessee challenged the ex-parte order passed
by the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee could not attend the
proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently the appeal of the
assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) summarily.
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO
Now before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has
submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order
without serving a notice on the assessee and further, the ld. CIT(A) has
also dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing an ex-parte
order without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Thus the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee may
be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the ld.
CIT(A) and to file supporting evidence to explain the source of deposits
in the bank account.
On the other hand the ld. DR has vehemently objected to grant
of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that despite
sufficient opportunities granted by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) the
assessee did not appear before the authority below and therefore, the
conduct of the assessee shows that the assessee is not serious about
the proceedings but has adopted delaying tactics.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the
assessee in para 2.2 to 3 which reads as under:-
“2.2 I have perused the facts of the case and the assessment order. In this case, the ample number of opportunities given to the appellant are tabulated below:- 4
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO
Date of hearing fixed Remarks 25.09.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 22.10.2019 22.10.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 20.11.2019 20.11.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 12.12.2019 11.12..2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 07.01.2019 07.01.2019 None attended
2.2.1 In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant and the Authorized Representative are not interested in contesting the appeal and in-spite of sufficient opportunity and time have not submitted any detail what so ever. On merits it seems that assessee has nothing to say in support of grounds of appeal taken. After careful consideration of the order, I find that Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition, hence ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed”
Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by
the AO on the ground that the assessee is not interested in contesting
the appeal in spite of sufficient time granted to him. It is pertinent to
note that the Assessing Officer has made additions on account of
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO
unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee for want of
any explanation on behalf of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has not
decided the issue by considering any explanation or record to be
furnished by the assessee but the appeal of the assessee is summarily
dismissed due to non appearance. Except on the last date of hearing
i.e. 07.01.2020 which is wrongly mention in the impugned order as
07.01.2019 on all other occasions the ld. CIT(A) accepted the request
for adjournment of hearing therefore, the default of appearing before
the ld. CIT(A) on the last date of hearing has resulted ex-parte order.
The issue involved in this case is regarding source of deposits made in
bank account and the AO accepted the activity of the assessee in
commodity trading therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case
we are of the considered view that the assessee may be granted one
more opportunity to explain the source of deposits by producing the
relevant document/evidence. Accordingly we set aside to the impugned
order of the ld. CIT(A) and the matter is remanded to the record of the
ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after granting one more
opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of deposits
with supporting evidence.
ITA No.16/JP/2021 Ramesh Chand Saini vs. ITO In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2021. Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27/10/2021. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Ramesh Chand Saini, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-5(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 16/JP/2021} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
