MOJIKA REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1010/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 August 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 372 days because the order was initially sent to an ex-employee's email. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a hearing. The assessee is in the real estate business and claimed deductions.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording a hearing is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1010/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Mojika Real Estate and Circle-1 Developers Private Limited Jaipur Vs (Respondent) 704, 705, 706 Kailash Complex, 7th Floor, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. PAN: AAECM8357R (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue Represented: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 03-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Applicant/Assessee- Mojika Real Estate and Developers Private Limited by filing present application sought to condone the delay of 372 days in filing the appeal, on the grounds inter alia that the assessee was intimated the impugned order on email ID ankit.agarwal@mojikagroup.com, which belongs to ex-employee of the assessee namely Shri Ankit Agarwal; that Shri Ankit Agarwal had since resigned from his job prior to the passing of this order and has

I.T.A No. 1010/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Mojika Real Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

not communicated the order to the assessee; that assessee came to know about the impugned ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 07.07.2005, when he contacted his counsel and has brought on record the affidavit of the Director of the company. 2. Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the sole ground that in Form no. 36, the assessee has not claimed any delay and as such application may be dismissed. 3. We are of the considered view that the reason for delay in filing the appeal as made out by the assessee is plausible because when the impugned order has been intimated on the email ID of the employee, who had since resigned the assessee had no occasion to know about the passing of the impugned order. So far as objection raised by Ld. DR “that Form No. 36 does not claim the delay”, is concerned this is a mere clerical error in the face of the fact that assessee has come with application for condonation of delay supported with the affidavit. Hence finding “sufficient cause” the delay of 372 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. In view of the matter, present appeal is ordered to be registered to be heard on merits. 5. Assessee- Mojika Real Estate and Developers Private Limited by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order

I.T.A No. 1010/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Mojika Real Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] dated 16.04.2024 on the ground inter-alia that:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has grossly erred in iaw and facts in confirming the order of Ld. AO while complete proceedings including initiation as well as further issued Notices in respect thereto are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings and orders are invalid, illegal and bad in law hence liable to be quashed.

2.

The Id. NFAC/CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,32,000/- on account of Income from House Property, Rs. 5020/- (ESI), Rs. 37,226/- (PF) disallowed on account of pertains to the FY 2016-17 while accounting is maintained on Mercantile basis and Rs. 65,000/- disallowed on account of Interest on which TDS late deposited as made by Ld. AO, and also erred without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is being contrary to the provisions of the law and facts of the case therefore the same may kingly be deleted in toto,

3.

The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has grossly eared in confirming the order of Ld. AO as passed wholly in violation of natural justice lack of issuing proper SCN.

4.

The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal against the assessee without providing opportunity of being heard therefore violation of natural justice hence appeal should be restored.

I.T.A No. 1010/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Mojika Real Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

5.

The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO whereas initiated Penalty u/s 270A without issuing SCN led to violation of natural justice.

6.

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 and 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.

7.

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

Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication of the issues 6. at hand are: Assessee is into the Real Estate business and claimed deduction under section 80IA/80IAB/80IAC/80IB/80IC/80IBA/80ID/80IE of the Act, it being the first year of deduction. During the year under consideration, assessee carried out one project namely Ultima, an Affordable Housing scheme, under Pradhan Mantri Jan Awas Yojna. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has shown closing stock of finished products to the tune of Rs. 19,12,78,651.36/- but has not accounted for any lettable value. After considering the reply of the assessee, Assessing Officer computed total income to the tune of Rs.

I.T.A No. 1010/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Mojika Real Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

19,32,000/- and computed income under section 115JB of the

Act to the tune of Rs. 3,94,75,485/-.

7.

Aggrieved with the assessment order assessee challenged

the same before Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing of appeal. Ld. CIT(A)

stated to have issued notices u/s 250 of the Act as under:-

Notice issued u/s 250 Issued date Fixing for hearing Remarks ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2023241060655 08.02.2024 14.02.2024 Remained 102(1) uncomplied ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/202324/106110 19.02.2024 26.02.2024 Remained 7909(1) uncomplied ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2024- 04.04.2024 12.04.2024 Remained 25/1063906322(1) uncomplied

Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismissed the appeal ex-

parte.

8.

Bare perusal of the impugned findings passed by Ld. CIT(A)

goes to prove that the Ld. CIT(A) without touching the merit of

this case proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte. Perusal of the

notices issued to the assessee as recorded in para 2 of the

impugned order do not disclose, if the notices were ever served

upon the assessee rather it is merely mentioned that notice

remained uncomplied. It is cardinal principle of rule of natural

justice that, “no one should be condemned unheard”.

I.T.A No. 1010/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Mojika Real Estate and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

9.

Hence, we are of the considered view, that the assessee has not been provided with an opportunity of being heard and as such appeal filed by the assessee is hereby accepted by setting aside the impugned order. Ld. CIT(A) to pass afresh order after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 10/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →