MAHESH MEDATWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD,1 (4), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 607/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 August 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's representative argued that non-compliance was due to the Covid pandemic and a short span for responding to notices, there was also non-appearance before the CIT(A). The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessment was initiated under Section 147 due to information about the sale of joint immovable property and non-filing of the return for AY 2013-14. The assessee later filed a return and was issued further notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) which were also not complied with.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with notices, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 607/JPR/2025

Pronounced: 28/08/2025

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28 /08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, On 19.02.2025, Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, passed order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2013-14, and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while upholding the assessment order.

Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. That appeal was preferred by the assessee, while challenging assessment order dated 26.03.2022 as the total income of the assessee was thereby computed at Rs. 19,56,132/-. What led to Initiation of Assessment Proceedings? 2. The assessment proceedings came to be initiated as information was received by the department that the assessee had sold joint immovable property and received huge amount in consideration, but, the assessee had not even filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2021. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,132/-. However, thereafter, the assessee did not comply with the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, issued on 17.11.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 14.12.2021 and 28.01.2022. While allowing request of the assessee for adjournment on 09.03.2022, fresh notice dated 12.03.2022 was issued to the assessee, but still he did not comply with the notices. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order.

3.

As noticed above, the assessment order came to be upheld. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal.

4.

Arguments heard. File perused.

Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur.

5.

Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing that the assessee was issued three notices i.e. on 01.01.2025, 14.01.2025 and 24.01.2025, but, the assessee did not respond thereto.

6.

As regards non compliance before Learned CIT(A), Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the three notices were issued within a short span of one month, and as such, the assessee could not respond.

7.

It is true that notices were issued in the first, second and third week of January, 2025, but, what to say of non compliance, there was even non appearance on behalf of the appellant before Learned CIT(A). Form 35 was submitted before Learned CIT(A) online. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed that the appellant had the assistance of tax consultant/AR for the purpose of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). In the given situation, appropriate steps were required to be taken even by the authorized representative of the appellant, but no steps appearance to have been taken.

8.

When questioned about non compliance before the Assessing Officer dispute issuance of notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) of the Act, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee could not comply with the same.

Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. The only submission put forth by the Ld. AR for the appellant is that the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer so that the assessee is able to produce all the relevant evidence/material there, on the issues involved.

9.

Even through, in the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not explained non compliance by the assessee during assessment proceedings, we find that it was a period of Covid pandemic. Furthermore, we take into consideration the issues involved i.e. income from sale of immovable property and deposit of the said amount.

10.

Ld. DR for the department has also no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer.

11.

Having regards to all the facts and circumstances, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the files of the Assessing Officer. Result 12. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the Assessing Officer is directed to make assessment afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →