BAJRANG SINGH RAJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1120/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 July 2026AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of hearing notices and without verifying the status of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal raised valid points regarding the CIT(A)'s power to dismiss for non-prosecution and the procedure for dismissing an appeal as infructuous under the DTVSV Act. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow the correct procedure. Therefore, the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bajrang Singh Rajawat, filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was before the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata. The assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and received Form No. 3 on 27.01.2021, indicating a payment of Rs. 3,78,584/- due by 31.03.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous based on this. The assessee is now appealing this dismissal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT noted that none appeared for the assessee, but the Revenue's representative confirmed no further forms were issued after Form No. 3 and the assessee did not withdraw the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring service of hearing notices, as per Section 250(6) of the Act? The assessee argued that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous under Section 4(2) read with Section 5(1) of the DTVSV, 2020 Act, without verifying the fate of the assessee's application or downloading relevant forms from the system. The Revenue, represented by Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT, submitted that no further forms were issued to the assessee after Form No. 3 and the assessee did not seek withdrawal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6),Section 4(2),Section 5(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1120/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Bajrang Singh Rajawat The ITO, Village- Bhambhoriya, Ajmer Ward-7(2), Road Via Bhankrota, Teshil- V Jaipur. Sanganer, Jaipur. s PAN: DDWPS0786P (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of hearing : 29-07-2026 Date of pronouncement : 30-07-2026 ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),-1, Kolkata (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15.

I.T.A No. 1120/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Bajrang Singh Rajawat vs. ITO

2.

Solitary issue in this appeal that the assessee opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, wherein received Form No. 3 dated 27.01.2021 to make payment of Rs. 3,78,584/- on or before 31.03.2021. Based on the above Form No. 3, the Ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal infructuouse and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee is in appeal before us arising on the following Grounds of Appeal:- “1. The CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring the service of notices of hearing sent by it.

2.

The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.)

3.

The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as infructuous, in view of the provisions of Section 4(2) read with Section 5(1) of DTVSV, 2020 Act, without making any enquiries from the AO as to the fate of assessee's application or downloading Form-4/Form-5 from the System.

4.

The assessee craves his right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Ld. DR after verification from the Assessing Officer submitted that no other Form has been issued to the assessee after Form No. 3 and the assessee also did not seek application for withdrawal of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above factual position, the appellate order passed by

I.T.A No. 1120/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Bajrang Singh Rajawat vs. ITO

the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside with a direction to pass orders on merits by duly giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as 5. allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30-07-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 30/07/2026. *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 4(2)

All 87 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →