ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2021-22

Anil Kumar Agarwal ITO, Affaris India, Civil Ward-1(3), Vs Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur PAN: AAMPA9639B (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue Represented: Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 18-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Anil Kumar Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 29.08.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment years 2021-22 & 2022-23 on the grounds inter-alia that:- ITA No. 1399/JPR/2025 ( A.Y. 2022-23)

I.T.A No.1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Anil Kumar Agarwal

“1. The impugned order u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025 as well as the notice u/s 147 and action or proceedings u/s 147 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, and against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2.Rs.3,20,000/- The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.3,20,000/- as alleged interest paid on account of alleged cash loan of 10.00 lakh as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and the Ld. AO and CIT(A) both have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense, and also erred in confronting or in providing the seized material and evidences to the assessee. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

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.”

ITA No. 1400/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22)

“1. The impugned order u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025 as well as the notice u/s 147 and action or proceedings u/s 147/144 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, and against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

I.T.A No.1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Anil Kumar Agarwal

I.T.A No.1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Anil Kumar Agarwal

assessee has paid interest of Rs. 1,20,000/- in cash during A.Y. 2021-22 and Rs. 3,20,000/- in cash during A.Y. 2022-23. Consequently, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 3,20,000/- in A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23 respectively by framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has dismissed both appeals. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee at the very outset contended that he has filed reply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer available at page 11 of the paper book, wherein he has claimed that no loan has been taken by him. He has further filed reply available at page 38 of the paper book replying that when no loan was taken from the Naraniya Group question of paying interest does not arise. The assessee was also not been given copy of the statement of Shri

I.T.A No.1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Anil Kumar Agarwal

Nav Ratan Naraniya despite demand and as such grave in justice has been caused to the assessee. At the same time, it is pointed out by the Ld. AR for the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, rather passed ex-parte order. 6. We have perused paras 4 and 6 of the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) in appeal for A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23 respectively, wherein 5 opportunities are shown to have been given to the assessee, who had taken adjournments, which were granted but ultimately Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeals in the absence of the assessee on account of his failure to appear. 7. No doubt, impugned orders categorically shows that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to pursue his appeals but for the reasons best to known to him, he has not appeared rather made submission that it is because of the negligence of his counsel the appeals remained unattended. 8. Without entering into veracity of the contentions raised by the assessee, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and to decide the appeals once for all and to stop multiplicity of the proceedings one more reasonable opportunity is required to be

I.T.A No.1399 & 1400/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Anil Kumar Agarwal

granted to the assessee, whose documents have not been considered nor he was given copy of statement of Navratan Narayna relied upon by AO 9. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and appeals are allowed for statistical purposes to remand the cases back to Ld. CIT(A) to decided afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 31/08/2026. *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