MAHENDRA HALDIYA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5) 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: 916/JPR/2025 Assessment year 2008-09

Mahendra Haldiya (HUF), ITO, E-65, Siddharth Nagar, Ward-6(5), Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Vs Jaipur. PAN: AAKHM1728D (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 17-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Mahendra Haldiya (HUF) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as the ‘JCIT(A)’] confirming the addition of Rs. 17,80,465/- on account of short term capital gain made by the AO for Assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds inter-alia that:-

I.T.A No. 916/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Mahendra Haldiya (HUF)

“1. hat in the facts AMD circumstances of the case AMD in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,80,465/- under the head short term capital gain made by the learned AO.

I.T.A No. 916/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Mahendra Haldiya (HUF)

appeal on the basis of record available on file with the assistance of the Ld. DR for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication and consideration of the issues at hand are: Original return filed by the assessee for the year under consideration was processed. However assessment was reopened by initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and on failure of the assessee to prove the source of amount paid for sale consideration of the plot purchases by the assessee, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 17,80,465/- on account of short term capital gain. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition made by the AO by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that in para 5 of the impugned order it is recorded that five notices were issued to the assessee on the basis of which he has filed written submissions of e-filing portal, but thereafter none appeared on

I.T.A No. 916/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Mahendra Haldiya (HUF)

behalf of the assessee to pursue the appeal. Resultantly, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte without touching on merits of this case. 7. Since, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is passed ex- parte on failure of the assessee to put in appearance but not on merits. To decide the issue once for all and to stop the multiplicity of proceedings. The case is required to be remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 27/08/2026. *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