TAJ MOHD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD 2(3), JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2011-12)

Taj Mohd Vs. ITO 124, Heera Nagar, Ajmer Ward 2(3), Road 302021 Jaipur New Central Building Bhagwan Das Road �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AMSPM 4056 E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 11.10.2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4/JPR/2025 Taj Mohd 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law the learned AO has erred in imposing income u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 19,80,000/-/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, in Law and in the principles of natural justice, the Assessing Officer erred in not giving the appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Further, Assessee have complete reply on his hand but due to unavoidable circumstances, unable to submitted on timely as mentioned in order sheet.so kindly allow to submit information and documentary evidence to withdrawn the demand which is unjustified for Assessee. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have noted this to be 16th occasion when the matter was listed for hearing and on all previous occasions, the assessee, I have noted has remained unrepresented, except on four occasions, when the assessee has been noted to be represented by Sh. Ajmal Ansari Employee from the Office of the A.R.. The records before me reveal no power of attorney being granted by the assessee to represent its matter before me. Therefore, it is abundantly clear, that on all the occasions when the matter has been listed for hearing, the assessee has remained unrepresented throughout. All notices of hearing have been issued at the address stated in Form No.36 of the appeal filed before me, and I have noted that the same have not returned un-served. It is abundantly clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. The present appeal, therefore was heard ex parte the assessee. 4. Orders of the Authorities below reveal that the assessee has not participated in either of the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte assessment order being passed u/s 144 of the Act, with the AO making addition of Rs.19,80,000/- to the income of the assessee, on account of investment in purchase of a property to the said extent, the source of

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4/JPR/2025 Taj Mohd which remained unexplained. And the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the order of the AOin the absence of any representation by the assessee before him, to controvert the findings of the AO. 5. Before me also, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, I am left with no choice, but to confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs.19,80,000/- made to the income of the assessee. 6. In effect, therefore the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur