Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shri Ramesh Kumar Rodilal Jain, passed away during assessment proceedings. His legal heir, Shri Dhulchand Ramesh Kumar Jain, pursued the appeals. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals against assessment orders.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding lack of opportunity and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case on merits, subject to paying a cost.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ramesh Kumar Rodilal Jain Room No.03, Luccy Mainsion, Dr. Maheshwari Road, Sandust Road, Mumbai – 400009.Maharashtra. [PAN:ADHPJ3105D] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer Central Circle 2(1), Vs Mumbai Central Building, Mumbai – 400020. Maharashtra …………. Respondent & Dhulchand Ramesh Kumar Jain Room No.03, Luccy Mainsion, Dr. Maheshwari Road, Sandust Road, Mumbai – 400009.Maharashtra. [PAN:ANGPJ5540D] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai Central Building, Mumbai – 400020. Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Prateek Jain For the Respondent/Department : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.10.2025 Pronouncement of order : 30.10.2025
O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals which were taken up for hearing together since they arise from common factual matrix and are, therefore, &2309/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 being disposed off by way of a common order. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.
The relevant facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2021-2022, the Assessee [i.e Shri Ramesh Kumar Roadilal Jain having PAN No.ADHPJ3105D] had passed away. Therefore, vide Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022, assessment was framed in the name of his Legal Heir (namely, Shri Dhulchand Ramesh Kumar Jain having PAN ANGPJ5540D). The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the said Assessment Order was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A). The aforesaid dismissal order has been challenged by the Appellant by way of . The said appeal is directed against the Order, dated 17/01/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)‟], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No. 2308/Mum/2025:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in holding that the money found during the search was unexplained money of the appellant, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
3. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by u/s.69A of the Act, on account of alleged unexplained money, on protective basis, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise. Assessment Year 2021-2022 4. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O. in holding the vehicle used by the appellant as unexplained investment thereby invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
5. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case and law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.8,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, on account of unexplained investment, on protective basis, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.”
We note that the same Assessing Officer had also framed identical assessment in the name of Shri Dhulchand Ramesh Kumar Jain [hereinabove referred to as „the Appellant‟] making identical additions vide Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the said Assessment Order was also dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide separate Order dated 17/01/2025 impugned by way of ITA No. 2309/Mum/2025. Following grounds have been raised in (which are identical to the grounds raised in ): “1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in holding that the money found during the search was unexplained money of the appellant, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
3. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by u/s.69A of the Act, on account of alleged unexplained money, on protective basis, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O. in holding the vehicle used by the appellant Assessment Year 2021-2022 as unexplained investment thereby invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
5. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.8,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, on account of unexplained investment, on protective basis, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise.”
4. Addressing the submissions in respect of both the appeals the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that Shri Ramesh Kumar Roadilal Jain had passed away during the course of assessment proceedings. Since the affairs were managed by him, his legal heir (i.e. Shri Dhulchand Ramesh Kumar Jain/ the Appellant) did not have relevant documents/details readily available and therefore, the same could not be filed during the appellate proceedings before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee requested that the Appellant be granted another opportunity to make out a case on merits.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Assessee to make representation before the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A). However, since the Assessee had failed to take benefit of the same, order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be sustained.
We have considered the rival submissions recorded and have perused the material on record.
After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant. We find that identical additions have been in the hands of the Assessee in the individual capacity vide Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022, and in capacity as Legal Heir vide Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022. Therefore, in our view, both the Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Officer could not Assessment Year 2021-2022 have been sustained by the Learned CIT(A). However, at the same time we find that the Appellant had failed to take advantage of the opportunities granted to make out a good case on merits before the authorities below. During the course of hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had explained that the documents were not readily available with the Appellant since the business/commercial matters were handled by the Late Sh. Shri Ramesh Kumar Roadilal Jain. Therefore, given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant the Assessee another opportunity to make proper representation subject to payment of cost of INR.5000/- per appeal to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within a period of 30 days of this order. Subject to deposit of cost as aforesaid, the Order, dated 17/01/2025, passed by the CIT(A) in Appeal No. CIT(A) 48, Mumbai/10044/2020-21 [DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072267708(1), PAN: ADHPJ3105D] and Appeal No. CIT(A) 48, Mumbai/10043/2020-21 [DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072267613(1), PAN:ANGPJ5540D] are set aside, with the directions to adjudicate both the appeals afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the payment of the aforesaid cost before adjudicating the appeal afresh. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to admit/consider the same as per law. It is, however, clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. Assessment Year 2021-2022 8. In terms of the Paragraph 7 above, Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes, while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed at this stage since we have set aside the impugned order(s).
In terms of paragraph 8 above, the both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.