ISHWAR LAL TEKWANI,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), 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: 359/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Ishwar Lal Tekwani ITO, Prop. M/s Gulraj Jewellers, Ward-2(1), Vs 172 Gheewalon Ka Rasta, Jaipur. (Respondent) Johri Bazar, Jaipur. PAN: AAKPT3358E (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Ms. Priya Agrawal, C.A. (thr. VC) 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, Ishwar Lal Tekwani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal without considering the evidences

I.T.A No. 359/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Ishwar Lel Tekwani

adduced by the assessee and without any discussion on the merits of the case. Therefore, appellant prays that the order so passed without considering the evidences furnished is not in accordance with law and hence addition deserves to be deleted.

2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld. AO merely on the basis of information received from Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5(3), Mumbai and without independent application of mind. Thus, the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and the consequent reassessment order so passed deserves to be quashed.

3.1 That, the Id.AO has further erred in making addition by placing reliance on the so called copy of confirmation received by him, without even verifying the authenticity and genuineness of the same. Appellant prays that signatures (stated to be of assessee) on the confirmation do not match with the signature of assessee, thus addition made by Id.AO without further verification is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

I.T.A No. 359/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Ishwar Lel Tekwani

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5(3), Mumbai reopening was initiated by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Reasons for reopening was provided to the assessee, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and in response thereto assessee filed details. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment, on the ground that assessee has relied upon, one fake confirmation filed by 3rd party in its assessment proceedings, which fact was got verified by issuance of notice and thereafter framed assessment at Rs. 25,63,280/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the same. 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. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that in para 4 of the impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) reported to have issued 9 notices on 26.11.2024 and 29.09.2025 the assessee sought adjournment but thereafter failed to appear nor filed written

I.T.A No. 359/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Ishwar Lel Tekwani

submissions and consequently, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex- parte. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that due to illness of the assessee he could not contact his tax consultant to hand over necessary documents and one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A) but get the appeal decided on merits. 7. However on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed this contention on the ground of numerous opportunities have already been granted to the assessee, who has not preferred to avail of the same numerous . 8. No doubt, from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order it is proved that assessee remained negligent to pursue his appeal but keeping in view the fact that the assessee fell sick and could not assist his tax consultant to pursue the appeal, one more opportunity may be granted. Moreover issue is required to be decided on merits once for all by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. So in view of the matter the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside to be decided afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 359/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Ishwar Lel Tekwani

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