HARKARAN SINGH BINDRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (3), JAIPUR

fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Harkaran Singh Bindra cuke The ITO Vs. 301-302, Plot No. 6-GA-8A, Triveni Apartment Ward -1 (1) Uday Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302 004 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BFIPB 1942 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025 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 26.06.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC") has erred in passing the order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR quashing the order being against the principles of natural justice as passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to make submissions.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 2,44,276 to the income of the assessee. The action of Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 2,44,276.

SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR ‘’3.3 I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the assessment order I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the appellant in the absence of any plausible explanation and documentary evidences in support of the claims made. The appellant has not responded to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act. However, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, I have carefully considered the grounds raised by the appellant despite his non-responsive behaviour. The assessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi under section 143(3) r.ws. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands as a well-reasoned and comprehensive document, thoroughly discussing the issues involved and the reasons behind rejecting the appellant's contentions. In the circumstances, the action of the AO is upheld and the amount of addition of Rs. 17,74,308/- are confirmed. 3.4. In view of the above, the appeal is treated as dismissed.

2.2 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 before the ld. CIT(A) as to addition of Rs.17,74,308/- sustained by him so that the issue in question could be settled. 2.3 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. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual had e-filed his income tax return on 21-03-2013 in ITR-3 showing total income SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR at Rs.4,73,300/- and tax paid of Rs.1,000/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. The return of the assessee was selected through CASS by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 02- 06-2023 which was served on the assessee electronically. The assessee was provided multiple opportunities by the AO (Assessment Unit-Income Tax Department) but the assessee had not provided the consolidated statement of profit & loss or ledger account whereby the actual gain can be deduced. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessee had left it to the Assessing Officer to make calculation from the statement filed of 50 pages in connection with crypto currency. From the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO made two additions i.e. (1)Rs.15,30,032/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and Rs.2,44,276/- as Estimation of Income from Crypto trading. The narration so made by the AO at page 12 and 13 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- ‘’From the above, it can be seen that there is no PAN or mentioned in the said entity nor has the same been confirmed by the purported loan. Accordingly the statement cannot be considered to establish the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the person who is stated to have advanced loan to the assessee which is stated to be one of the source of the business. Moreover at this late juncture wherein the assesses has uploaded such new incomplete documents independent verifications also cannot be made especially in the absence of PAN and even address. During the course of SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR VC the assessee was informed about the same and was required to provide all supporting to substantiate the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the person considering the extent of loan stated to be given over the year. However the assessee had in response merely filed a copy of the PAN card of the said person and other persons from whom the assesse is stated to have obtained loan for trading in the crypto-currency. it was further contented that the said amounts have been repaid in the subsequent year and that since the assessee does not maintain any books the amounts cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. However the said documents in itself does not confirm the source of the amounts utilized for trading in crypto currency. It is seen that the peak credit shown from the said person Shri Adity Singh Bindra is Rs. 13,84,235/- for the year. The said amount is considered as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Further in addition to the same the assessee has shown loans/credit from other persons of Rs. 1,45,797-. The same is also added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The total addition on such account is Rs.15,30,032/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated separately for the same.

SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Due to the lapses on the part of the assessee where there are non-compliances in total and addition being made in line with CASS reasons.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assessee had not advanced any plausible explanation and documentary evidences in support of the claims made and thus in the circumstances of the case, he upheld the action of the AO, confirming addition of Rs.17,34,308/- (i.e. Rs.15,30,302/- u/s 69A Plus Rs.2,44,276/- as Estimation of Income from Crypto Trading). 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 ld. CIT(A) 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.