BHAJAN LAL SURESH CHAND SARAF,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 99/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 August 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but granted one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in gold and silver trade, filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and lack of consideration of written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were bad in law due to non-receipt of notices and non-consideration of submissions. Whether additions made for bogus purchases, creditors, payments, and unexplained credit were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 115BBE,Section 69C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos: 96 & 99/JPR/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra DCIT, Saraf Central Circle, Vs 5 Batti, Beawar, Ajmer Ajmer PAN: AACFB2942G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr. VC) Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 13-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Appellant, Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra Saraf by filing aforesaid inter-connected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 08.01.2026 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur-2 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] on the grounds interalia that :- ITA No. 96/JPR/2026 for A.Y 2013-14 1. That passing ex-parte order by Ld CIT(A), Udaipur-2 is bad in law. Since written submission during personal hearing were filed on

I.T.A Nos. 96 & 99/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Bhajan Lal Suresh Chand Saraf

15/08/2023 and on 18/08/2025 to CIT(A), Udaipur / Jaipur later jurisdiction transfer to CIT(A)(5) CC Jaipur and transfer to CIT(A), Udaipur-2 camp at Jaipur but no intimation received for change in jurisdiction. Thus the Ld CIT(A) has not considered or corelated the fact and written submission filed nor the notices served for hearing by Ld CIT(A) have also not been received on portal and appellant request to SET ASIDE the order of CIT(A)

2.

That notice u/sec. 148 dated 26/07/2022 as issued is bad in law.

3.

That addition of Rs. 16033532/- for bogus purchases / creditors / payments is bad in law. Further these are BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS and thus no provision for levy of tax u/sec. 115BBE can be applied.

4 Addition of Rs. 440992/-u/sec. 69C of Act.

5.

Any other matter with prior permission of the chair. ITA No. 99/JPR/2026 for A.Y 2014-15

1.

That passing ex-parte order by Ld CIT(A), Udaipur-2 is bad in law. Since written submission during personal hearing were filed on 03/08/2023, 03/09/2024 and on 18/08/2025 to CIT(A), Udaipur / Jaipur later jurisdiction transfer to CIT(A)(5) CC Jaipur and transfer to CIT(A), Udaipur-2 camp at Jaipur but no intimation received for change in jurisdiction. Thus the Ld CIT(A) has not considered or corelated the fact and written submission filed nor the notices served for hearing by Ld CIT(A) have also not been received on portal and appellant request to SET ASIDE the order of CIT(A).

2.

That notice u/sec. 148 dated 26/07/2022 as issued is bad in law.

3.

That addition of Rs. 6238500/- for unexplained credit u/sec. 68 is bad in law. Further these are BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS and thus no provision for levy of tax u/sec. 115BBE can be applied.

4 Addition of Rs. 171558/-u/sec. 69C of Act.

5.

Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.

I.T.A Nos. 96 & 99/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Bhajan Lal Suresh Chand Saraf

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and 2. adjudication of the issues at hand are: The assessee partnership firm is doing the wholesale and retail trade business of gold and silver ornaments and other precious stones under the name & style ‘Swarn Ganga Jewellers’. 3. Assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 13,18,265/- and 14,80,850/- for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Thereafter, on the basis and search and seizure operations notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, assessment was reopened by initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In response thereto assessee filed return of income on 22.12.2021 and 25.12.2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Thereafter, assessment order was framed u/s 147 of the Act at total income of Rs. 1,77,92,720/- and Rs. 78,90,910/- u/s 147 of the Act for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. 4. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee firm has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.

I.T.A Nos. 96 & 99/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Bhajan Lal Suresh Chand Saraf

5.

We have heard ld. AR of the assessee, ld. DR of the revenue and perused the documents available on record. 6. Bare perusal of the (“identically worded”) impugned orders passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 go to prove that the assessee has failed to pursue appeals filed by him. Despite multiple opportunities granted to him he did not appear nor the assessee has filed statement of facts in Form No. 35 and resultantly, both the appeals have been decided ex-parte. 7. No doubt, assessee has remained negligent through out during the proceedings at first appellate stage but to decide the issues involved in the present appeals once for all one more reasonable opportunity is required to be granted to the assessee to meet, with the ends of justice, ld. AR for the assessee assured that assessee will put in appearance before ld. CIT(A) without fail. In these circumstances, impugned orders dated 08.01.2026 for A.Y 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively are set aside to be decided afresh by the ld. CIT(A) on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. 8. Resultantly, both the appeals filed the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

I.T.A Nos. 96 & 99/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Bhajan Lal Suresh Chand Saraf

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. *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →