PAWAN GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 796/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 August 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the illness of their tax practitioner and that a fresh notice should have been issued before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, one more opportunity is granted to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was subjected to scrutiny assessment, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance, attributed to the illness of the Chartered Accountant.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case due to the illness of their representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

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: 796/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Pawan Gupta Assistant 106 Katewa Nagar New Commissioner of Vs Sanganer Road Sodala, Income Tax Jaipur Circle 2 PAN: AHIPG0574C Jaipur (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of hearing : 11-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Pawan Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that:-

I.T.A No. 796/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Pawan Gupta

“1. Ground1. That in the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing officer grossly erred in passing the order ex-parte order u/s 250.r.w.s 250 of the Act.

2.

Ground2. That in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. assessing officer grossly erred in making addition Rs.22,86,378/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE.

3.

Ground3. That in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. assessing officer grossly erred in making addition Rs.96,561/- on account of non-disclosure of Air Checking Fees

4.

Ground4. That in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. assessing officer grossly erred in making addition of amount resultant of peak of difference in the cash balance of cash book submit in response to notice issued u/s 131 and submit during the assessment proceeding without considering the reply filed by the assessee appellant. 5. Ground5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify OR amend any ground on OR before the date of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issued at hand are : Assessee’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. 16,38,630/- was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The assessee being engaged in the business of Petrol Pump, was called upon to explain sources of the cash deposit in the bank account. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to assess assessee’s income at Rs. 40,21,569/- by making addition to the tune of Rs. 22,86,378/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,

I.T.A No. 796/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Pawan Gupta

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and addition of Rs. 96,561/- earned through Air Checking fees. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the same ex-parte due to non appearance of 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. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. It is a matter or record that this is second round of litigation initiated by the assessee before the Tribunal. In the first round of litigation the assesse’s appeal was accepted by remanding the same back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing him opportunity of being heard as the assessee had failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Now, again the assessee has failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) to pursue his appeal who was constrained to decide the same ex-parte after providing ample opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 796/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Pawan Gupta

7.

Now, Ld. AR for the assessee by moving an application contended that during the pendency of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee’s Chartered Accountant namely Mr. Rajesh Shah was diagnosed with pancreatic infection and was admitted to the hospital from June 2024 to December 2024. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was advised complete bet rest by the doctors, hence he could not pursue the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for one last opportunity to be granted by Ld. CIT(A) to decided the appeal on merits. 8. No doubt this is second round of litigation but the assessee who has engaged tax prectioner to pursue the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) cannot be made to suffer because appeal remained unattended due to chronic illness of his tax prectioner. On account of absence of the tax prectioner fresh notice was required to be issued to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte, without deciding the appeal on merits. 9. In view of the matter one more opportunity is required to be given to the assessee, however subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to get the issue decided once for all which would stop multiplicity of the proceedings.

I.T.A No. 796/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Pawan Gupta

10.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 25/08/2026. *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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →