KISHAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JAIPUR

fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Kishan Lal Meena cuke The ITO Vs. 103-104, Mamta Burf Dipo Ward -1 (3) Surajpole Bazar, Opp. Chamunda Mata Mandir Jaipur Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur- 302 003 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFYPM 9496 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Anoop Bhatia, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 14.09.2023 for the assessment year 2009-10 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On facts and in circumstance of the case Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal ex- parte. Appellant prays that appeal so dismissed deserves to be set aside.

SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 2.. On facts an in the circumstances Ld. CIT(A) -NFAC has grossly erred in confirming addition amounting to Rs. 15,75,680/- made by ld. AO by treating the payment made for expenses incurred through credit card as being unexplained and from undisclosed sources. Appellant prays that such payment made for expenses incurred credit card being done through disclosed sources and being fully explainable, the addition made deserves to be deleted.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 631 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 21-08-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein reasoning that he is 12th pass and does not know have knowledge of computer i.e. online system as well as digital processing of Notices/ Orders on Income Tax Portal. Therefore, he could not timely file the appeal before ITAT and to this effect, he was advised by the Income Tax Professional to file the appeal against ld. CIT(A)’s order before ITAT, Jaipur Bench. He then further submitted that the delay made in filing the appeal is not deliberate but mistake occurred due to no knowledge of online system on Income Tax Portal. Hence, the assessee prayed to condone the delay so made in filing the appeal before ITAT.

SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to delay made in filing the appeal. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the reasons mentioned by the assessee in the condonation application, the Bench adopts the lenient view and condones the delay in late filing the appeal before ITAT. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that despite multiple opportunities the assessee neither filed any written submission nor any evidences in support of the grounds of appeal raised before him and he has no option but to conclude that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast u/s 69C of the Act. Thus the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure as made by the AO in the assessment order. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order at para 8.8 to para 12 are reproduced as under:-

‘’8.8 In the present case it is soon the assessee was found to have made unexplained expenditure by way of credit card payments amounting to Rs 15,75,677/-that no explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings in spite of multiple notices issued by the A.O. Thus the A.O has held in the order that the expenditure is unexplained and hence the correct section for making an addition would be section 69C of the Act and not 69A. In fact the AO in the main body of the order has at multiple places mentioned the violation by the assessee u/s 69C but at the computation at the end of the order has listed the section as 69A. From this it can be inferred that the mention of section 69A in the computation at the end of the order was an inadvertent mistake by the A.O. Thus the merit of the addition needs to be examined against the provisions of section 69C of the Act. As per the required burden of proof under this section, the assessee is required to provide the proof of the source of the expenditure especially as he was not filing any income tax return. This he failed to do during the assessment proceedings. 8.9 Furthermore, even in the present appellate proceedings there has not been any compliance to any of the notices issued. The contentions of the appellant raised in the statement of facts or the grounds of appeal are not backed by any documentary evidence and hence do not merit acceptance. It is for the appellant to submit a detailed explanation along with proper evidence to support the grounds of appeal and to contradict the findings of the A.O in the assessment order, which he has failed to do. No evidence has been submitted to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account, Accordingly, I am left with no option but to conclude that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is upheld u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure and the Grounds of Appeal are Not Allowed.

9. Ground No 3: This ground is against the initiation of penalties under various sections 271 (1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR Income Tax Act, 1961. The initiation and the levy of penalty are the subject matter of separate proceedings and hence are beyond the scope of the present appeal.

10. Ground No 4: This ground is general in nature and does not require adjudication.

11. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, I am constrained to concur with the AO's findings of fact and decisions thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submissions/documentations even during the instant appellate proceedings, to counter effectively the position adopted by the AO on the concerned issues and reduced in writing in the assessment order. It is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the addition made by the AO is sustained.

12. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is Dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO so that the issue in question could be settled.

3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19-03-2016 after recording reasons and prior approval of Pr. CIT-1. Jaipur u/s 151(1) of the Act dated 8-03-3-2016. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration. It is also noticed that in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee had not filed the return of income. According to the AO that as per the data retrieved from Individual Transaction System in AIR, the assesee had made payment of Rs.15,76,677/- through credit card and the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration in spite of notice u/s 148 of the Act date4d 19-03-2016 and duly served upon to the assessee on 5-07-2016 by affixture of service. The assessee has not complied with the notices and thus no return of income had been filed. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was also issued but no compliance was made by the assessee and thus the AO had no option except to complete the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act based on the material available on record. The Department for SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR verification of details of Individual Transaction Statement had called for an information u/s 133(6) of the Act relating to the assessee from ICICI Bank, Jaipur & City Bank on 31-05-2016. In compliance thereto, both the banks had sent a detailed report to the Department and on going through the details available on record, the AO found that assessee had made payment through credit card an amount of Rs.15,75,677/- and the sources of such payment was not explained by the assessee. Thus the AO made an addition of Rs.15,75,677/- as unexplained money on a/c of Section 69C of the Act in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:-

‘’Hence, source of expenditure of Rs. 15,75,677/- are found unexplained expenditure on a/c of u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. No submission or evidence has been received in reply to the show cause issued therefore it is presumed that the assessee has nothing to say and the assessment being time barring no further opportunities can be provided to the assessee and the assessment is being completed ex-parte on the basis of best judgement and made an addition of Rs. 15,75,677/- to the total income of the assessee under the head unexplained money on a/c of u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has concealed the income he is also liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has non compliance of various notices issued, SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is separately initiated, Penalty u/s 271F of the Income tax Act, 1961 is also initiated for failure to furnish of return in compliance of under sub-section(1) of section 139 of the Income tax Act.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not filed the any written submission / evidence to counter the order of the AO and thus failed to discharge the burden of proof case u/s 69C of the Act. The Bench noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and thus from the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

SHRI KISHAN LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /10/2025.