DHIRAJ KUMAR JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1269/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 May 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee claims to have submitted all relevant documents to the Assessing Officer, but they were not properly appreciated. The CIT(A) order confirmed additions made by the AO regarding disallowance of expenses, unexplained purchases, and differences in turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice by deciding the case ex-parte without proper notice. Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified based on the evidence presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 14.07.2025, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1269/JPR/2025 Dhiraj Kumar Jain

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO & CIT(A) has clearly erred in deciding the case of appellant as exparte without even providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant which clearly violates the principle of natural justice. 1.1 That, Id. AO & CIT(A) in a hasty and cursory manner had decided the case of the assessee in complete violation to the principal of natural justice and thus, on this sole ground alone, Order passed by Ld. AO & CIT (A) deserve to set aside and quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in passing the order dated 21.12.2022 ignoring that appellant in response to Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2022 has filed an adjournment seeking time upto 21.12.2022 and thus, the order passed by him without providing opportunity to hearing is bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. AO & ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in determining the appellant's income to the tune of Rs. 1,00,11,404/- during the relevant financial year. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. AO & ld. CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 28552/- by disallowing the expenses made by the appellant towards the interest and TDS during the relevant financial year. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. AO & ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the purchases to the tune of Rs. 27,07,537/-as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the act and added the same as income of the assessee. 3.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. AO & ld. CIT(A) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 62,22,045/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by alleging difference of turnover in GSTR-1 & ITR and treating the difference (figure reflecting in ITR and GSTR-1) as unexplained income of the appellant. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. AO as well as CIT(A) NFAC, has legally erred in not considering the documents/evidence submitted w.r.t the response to the Notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in passing the CIT(A) order dated 14.07.2025, without application of mind as the CIT(A) order is passed without considering the merits/documents submitted by the appellant. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in passing the CIT(A) order dated 14.07.2025 by assuming that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the purchases made, however, documentary evidence to substantiate such purchase were not considered. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has legally end in passing the CIT(A) order dated 14.07.2025 as no communications w.r.t the personal

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1269/JPR/2025 Dhiraj Kumar Jain hearing was received to the appellant via registered post or email with regards to the proceedings of CIT(A). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of ld. AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 274 of the Act against the assessee in a mechanical manner. 9. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.

3.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions (i) of Rs.28,552/- made by the Assessing Officer(in short, “the AO”) on account disallowance of expenses made by the assessee towards the interest on GST and TDS;(ii) on account of “unaccounted, unexplained expenditure” in the form of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.27,07,537/- and (iii) on account of difference of amount of Rs.62,22,045/- in Part A- Trading Account of ITR and Turnover as per GST Return (GSTR-1). The Ld. AR has contended that the assessee has duly furnished all the relevant documents and details including reconciliation statement before the Assessing Officer, however, certain details furnished by the assessee have not been properly appreciated by the AO, thereby, the AO making the impugned additions. He has further referred to the appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) and has contended that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. In this respect, he has submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A), hence he could not present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1269/JPR/2025 Dhiraj Kumar Jain

4.

The Ld. DR, however, has submitted that the AO had given adequate opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details; that even the AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) to various parties to verify the purchases etc., however, since the assessee could not satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the purchases and also failed to reconcile the difference between Part A of the trading account in the ITR and the turnover as per GST return, the AO has rightly made the impugned additions. He, therefore, objected to the restoration of the matter to the AO.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. Admittedly, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the relevant details were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer, but some of which could not be properly appreciated by the AO. He further submitted that the assessee has not been given an opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A), resulting into the passing of the ex-parte appellate order.

6.

Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, set aside and matter is restored to the file of the Ld.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1269/JPR/2025 Dhiraj Kumar Jain CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the assessee’s appeal. The assessee will be given an opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) to furnish the requisite details and evidences etc., upon which the Ld. CIT(A), if deemed fit, may call for a remand report from the AO and thereafter to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits by way of a speaking order in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 18/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 18.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →