RAM SAHAY MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1250/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A)'s order mentioned five notices issued to the assessee, the mode of issuance (digital or physical) and proof of service were not recorded. The assessee's representative claimed no notices were received and requested another opportunity. The Tribunal, considering that substantial justice requires another opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowances under Sections 10(10), 10(10AA), and 80C, nor the validity of the Section 148 notice or the non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order, as these were to be adjudicated in the fresh appeal proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Sahay Meena, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unverified deductions amounting to Rs. 38,46,001/-. The assessee had claimed deductions under Section 10(10), Section 10(10AA), and Section 80C. The AO made additions totaling Rs. 13,60,347/- and assessed the total income at Rs. 30,83,854/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance. The assessee contended that no notices were received, and requested another opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148, and consequential reassessment proceedings and assessment order, are illegal, unlawful, bad in law, and void-ab-initio for non-compliance with Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 2. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, is a non-speaking order, and thus liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 3. Whether the AO erred in disallowing the claim made under Section 10(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 7,19,128/-? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the AO erred in disallowing the claim made under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 6,41,219/-? (Question of mixed law and fact) 5. Whether the AO erred in disallowing the claim made under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 9,607/-? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of Sections 147 to 151. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order. The AO wrongly disallowed claims under Sections 10(10), 10(10AA), and 80C. The assessee also contended that no notices were received and requested a fair opportunity. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10),Section 10(10AA),Section 80C,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 1250/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Ram Sahay Meena The ITO, Village- Indrapuri, Sanganer, Ward-4(2), Vs Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN: AENPM1494H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.A. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of hearing : 05-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Ram Sahay Meena (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2020-21 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issue u/s. 148 dt. 31.03.2024 is without jurisdiction as without following the provision of section 147 to 151 of I.T. Act, 1961. So, the notice u/s. 148 as well as consequential reassessment proceeding and assessment order are illegal,

I.T.A No. 1250/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Ram Sahay Meena

unlawful, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Kindly quash the notice u/s. 148 and consequential and assessment order.

2.

That, On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts by passing a non-speaking order. Kindly quash the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC.

3.

That, On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO has grossly erred in disallowing the claim made u/s 10(10) of the Income Tax Law, 1961, amounting to Rs.7,19,128/. Kindly allow the same.

4.

That, On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO has grossly erred in disallowing the claim made u/s 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Law, 1961, amounting to 6,41,219/ Kindly allow the same.

5.

That, On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO has grossly erred in disallowing the claim made 80C of the Income Tax Law, 1961, amounting to 9,607/-. Kindly allow the same.

6.

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Under e-verification scheme reopening was initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). For the year under consideration, the assessee has filed return of income at the total income of Rs. 17,13,900/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- under chapter VI-A. The assessee has also received salary of Rs. 57,59,898/- from RBI samadhan. Since the assessee has failed to provide a copy of Form No. 16 and evidence of retiral

I.T.A No. 1250/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Ram Sahay Meena

benefits received from the employer for the relevant period and as such deduction to the tune of Rs. 38,46,001/- remained unverified. Thereafter numerous opportunities were given to the assessee, but no reply was filed consequently, Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 13,60,347/- by way of disallowance of exemption claimed and by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act proceeded to frame the assessment at the total income of Rs. 30,83,854/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the appeal due to non appearance of the assessee. Being 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. Bare perusal of para 4 of the impugned order apparently goes to show that five notices were reportedly issued to the assessee, but no reply has been filed. At the same time, Ld. AR for the assessee contended that no notice has ever been received by the assessee and requested for one more fair and adequate opportunity to pursue his

I.T.A No. 1250/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Ram Sahay Meena

appeal. No doubt, five notices are shown to have been issued to the assessee, but mode of issuance of notices whether through digital mode or through physical service, has not been recorded, nor it is recorded in the impugned order that notices were duly served upon the assessee. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that for substantial justice one more opportunity is required to be given to the assessee. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 13/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

I.T.A No. 1250/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Ram Sahay Meena

6.

Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 10(10)

All 48 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →