OM RUDRAPRIYA HOLIDAY RESORTS P LTD,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 SAWAI MADHOPUR, SAWAI MADHOPUR

Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated21.07.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1373/JPR/2025 Om Rudrapriya Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal: - 1. The Assessment order passed by learned National E Assessment Centre and confirmed by CIT Appeals is bad in law and void ab initio 2. That the learned AO NFAC and confirmed by CIT Appeals has erred in law and in facts in making an addition of Rs. 3,99,67,928/- as unexplained investment without any basis OR reasons.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1373/JPR/2025 Om Rudrapriya Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

construction of hotel building and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was given numerous opportunities to explain the difference in the cost of construction of the hotel but no explanation was ever submitted before him. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before us. 6. During the course of hearing before us, the appellant’s counsel submitted that due to following reasons, no explanation could be offered before the Ld. CIT (A) and requested for one more opportunity to explain its case. "That the Notice for hearing was issued by learned CIT Appeals on 26th November 2024 for compliance to be made till 9th December 2024, whereas the order has been passed on 21 July 2025, i.e. after a gap of 7 Months 12 days, that Notice dated 26th November 2024, the accountant of the appellant company overlooked to bring the factum of appeal fixation to the counsel, as he was pre occupied with marriage in the family, besides that the action of the CIT Appeals in dismissing the appeal after gap 7 Months and 12 days is contrary to the mandated CBDT circular dated 19th June 2015. Moreover the CIT appeal dismissed the appeal at very threshold without adjudicating the grounds of appeal and therefore it is humbly prayed before the worthy bench to kindly set aside the case to the file of CIT appeals." 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has deliberately not complied with the

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1373/JPR/2025 Om Rudrapriya Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the circumstances in which compliance was not made before the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that that the principle of natural justice demands that the appellant must be given one more chance to explain its case. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) to reconsider the explanation given by the assessee. The Appellant is also directed to submit relevant evidences/documents to substantiate its case before him. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 15/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 15/05/2026

Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1373/JPR/2025 Om Rudrapriya Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur