DHARMENDRA KUMAR,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 & 325/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2013-14 and 2014-15)

Dharmendra Kumar Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate, Barmer 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur-342001 PAN No. ASVPK 1290 P Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical) Date of Hearing 05 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: The captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of separate orders passed

by National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeals of the

assessee arising out of both the quantum and penalty proceedings pertaining to

assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

assessment years, the assessee filed his return of income in regular course.

2 ITA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Director of

Income Tax Investigation, Mumbai that the assessee has deposited huge amount

of cash in an account held in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jodhpur. Based on such

information, assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. As alleged by the

Assessing Officer, in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee did not

comply with any of the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer.

Therefore, ultimately the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the

assessments to the best of his judgment invoking the provisions of Section 144 of

the Act. While doing so, he added back amounts of Rs. 36,71,542/- and Rs.

15,99,410/- in assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Further

alleging non-compliance and violation of provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c)

and 271F as also alleging concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of

income, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s

271(10(c) of the Act. Ultimately, he passed orders imposing penalties u/s

271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act in assessment year 2013-14. Whereas, in

3 ITA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 assessment year 2014-15, he passed orders of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and

271F of the Act. Challenging the assessment orders as also orders imposing

penalty the assessee preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority.

However, due to non-representation of the assessee before First Appellate

Authority of the appeals were dismissed through ex-parte orders.

submitted that the assessee is from rural background and not well conversant

with the faceless proceedings. He submitted, the tax professional to whom the

assessee has entrusted the work failed to inform the assessee in time. Thus, the

proceedings were completed ex-parte. However, he submitted, given an

opportunity, the assessee would be properly representing his case before the

departmental authories. Hence, he requested for restoration of the matters to

the Assessing Officer.

4 ITA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, though, submitted that adequate

opportunity given to the assessee were not availed, however, she agreed for

restoration of the issues to the Assessing Officer.

find that for whatever may be the reason, assessee did not comply with the

notices issued by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment and penalty

proceedings. Even, before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee went un-

represented. Whereas, the additions have been made purely based on the fact

that the assessee was unable to furnish supporting evidence to explain the

source. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and materials on record, we are of

the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest additions on merits

through supporting evidences. To enable the assessee to do so, we are inclined to

set aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority confirming the

additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15

and restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication

5 ITA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Since the Assessing Officer has been directed to make fresh assessments, till such

assessments are made, penalty imposed under various provisions cannot survive.

Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer imposing

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act in the respective assessment

years. At the same time, we direct the assessee to properly represent his case

before the Assessing Officer.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent.

6 ITA Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,