Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an assessment order before the CIT(A) after it was reopened under Section 148 and further proceedings were initiated under Section 144 due to non-compliance. The assessee failed to furnish returns and explanations to notices from the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant before the CIT(A) but considered it fit to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision despite the assessee's non-compliance with notices and opportunities to be heard.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shankar Lal Sharma cuke The ITO, Vs. S/o Shri Nanu Ram Sharma, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. 282, Pipalya Valli Ki dhani, Fatehpura (Banas) Via-Samod, Chomu, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: FWWPS6943H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Ms. Komal Harsh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :29/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Appellant-assessee challenged, by filing an appeal before Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, assessment order dated 29.03.2023, relating to the assessment year 2015-16,. Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment order, while observing that the assessee had failed to furnish material in Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma, Jaipur. support of his claim put forth before the Assessing Officer or in the appellate proceedings. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
In the course of arguments the only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the assessee-appellant remained non compliant before Learned CIT(A) and that the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh while affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
A perusal of assessment order dated 29.03.2023 would reveal that case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Said notice was followed notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, but, the assessee neither furnished any return nor any explanation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded further by issuing show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted reply on 20.03.2023 along with certain documents. After considering the material available, the Assessing Officer recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 53,73,000/- by making addition of Rs. 50,70,500/-, due to the reason that the assessee was found to have sold agriculture land amounting to Rs. 7,81,000/-, but in the Return Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma, Jaipur. of Income filed, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act shown income of Rs. 3,02,500/-. As regards cash deposit, the Assessing Officer observed that on going through the bank statement submitted by the appellant, it transpired that he had deposited Rs. 58,81,500/- in cash in his bank account during the year under consideration, and further that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 50,70,500/- towards cash deposit remained unexplained.
When the matter came up before Learned CIT(A), four notices dated 20.02.2025, 28.02.2025, 07.03.2025 and 17.03.2025 were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) to the appellant, but, he failed to comply with the said notices or to avail of opportunity of being heard. Ultimately, Learned CIT(A), upheld the assessment order and dismissed the appeal.
As regards non appearance before Learned CIT(A), Form 35 reveals that the appellant had furnished email address and opted for service of notices/communications at the said email ID. It is not a case of the appellant that four notices were not served upon him at the said email address. In the given situation, when the appellant remained non compliant with four notices, having regard to the issue involved in the appeal, which arose out of the assessment order, we deem it a fit case to restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A).
Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma, Jaipur. Result 7. As a result, in view of the above discussion and findings, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside, and while disposing of the appeal for statistical purposes, the matter is remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Since the applicant failed to fully comply with directions issued by Learned CIT(A), despite opportunities, applicant is burdened with costs of Rs. 4000/-, to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The applicant to deposit costs and produce the receipts before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUn dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/07/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sh. Shankar lal Sharma, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ Theld CIT सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत