Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against assessment orders for AY 2017-18 to 2020-21. The CIT(A) dismissed all four appeals. The assessee claimed their authorized representative failed to inform them of notices, preventing participation in appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted receiving notices, the failure of the authorized representative to communicate them prevented participation. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to costs.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the authorized representative's failure to inform the assessee of notices and the subsequent non-participation in appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 153B(1)(b), 132(1), 143(2), 142(1), 250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 459, 463 to 465/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH:
This common order is to dispose of all the above captioned four appeals, as common question is involved, and Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue have argued all the said appeals simultaneously. 2. pertains to the assessment year 2017-18; pertains to the assessment year 2018-19; ITA No. 2020-21.
The assessee is feeling aggrieved by separate four orders dated 28.01.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), as thereby his four appeals against the four separate assessment orders, have been dismissed, and the assessment orders dated 28.09.2021 have been upheld.
Arguments heard. File perused.
First mentioned three assessment orders i.e. relating to the assessment year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, came to be passed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) whereas 4th assessment order relating to the assessment year 2020-21, came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act. In all the four matters, assessment proceedings commenced, on the basis of a search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act, carried out on 01.08.2019, at various premises of “Friend SPS Group, Kota”, to which the assessee belongs. As per case of the department, a number of persons/premises were covered and “cash jewellery and other incriminating documents” were found from the residence and business premises of some persons. The 463 To 465/JPR/2025 Sh. Pawan Gupta, Kota. assessee was also covered by the said search proceedings conducted on him.
In respect of the first mentioned three assessment years, notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee. On perusal of returns of income furnished by the assessee, in respect of said three assessment years and their comparison with the return of income initially filed, it transpired that there was difference between the ITRs furnished u/s 153A of the Act, and the ITRs furnished u/s 139 of the Act. That is how as regards the first mentioned three assessment years, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued on 06.02.2021. On completion of the assessment proceedings, assessment orders were passed, making additions in respect of said first mentioned three assessment years.
As regards the assessment year 2020-21, to which 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee on 01.03.2021 followed by a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, and going through the reply and documents furnished by the assessee, additions as regards undisclosed income and unexplained cash were made.
463 To 465/JPR/2025 Sh. Pawan Gupta, Kota.
Record reveals that the assessee challenged all the above four assessment orders by filing separate appeals. As is available from the four impugned orders, Learned CIT(A) dismissed all four appeals. The sole contention on behalf of appellant 9. Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission in respect of all the four appeals, and that is that the appeals filed before Learned CIT(A) by the assessee may be restored for decision afresh as the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings or respond to the notices issued on the email IDs.
From the above submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant, it transpires that the assessee admits receipt of notices issued by office of Learned CIT(A), in respect of all the four appeals, on the email IDs furnished in Form No.
Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee, through whom four appeals were filed before Learned CIT(A), did not apprise the assessee of the notices, and as such, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings. On going through the grounds of appeal in all the four appeals, we do not find that any such averment has been made therein to justify non 463 To 465/JPR/2025 Sh. Pawan Gupta, Kota. appearance of the assessee before Learned CIT(A), and non compliance with the notices. As finds mentioned in the four impugned orders, five notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) on 13.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 12.11.2024 and 26.12.2024. Learned CIT(A) specifically mentioned in the impugned order that in response to the said five notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, the appellant did not file any submission. That is how, all the four assessment orders were upheld by Learned CIT(A).
11. Notably, no affidavit of the previous authorized representative engaged by the assessee for the purpose of four appeals before Learned CIT(A), has been filed to support the submission put forth by the Ld. AR for the appellant before us. Due to this reason, initially, we were not inclined to grant any fresh opportunity of being heard to the appellant, for the reasons mentioned above. But taking into consideration the nature of the additions made and the submissions made by the Ld. AR for the appellant that additional evidence was to be led before Learned CIT(A), but the same could not be produced for want of communication of the notices by the authorized representative engaged there, and that the assessee should not be made 463 To 465/JPR/2025 Sh. Pawan Gupta, Kota. to suffer because of fault of the Authorized Representative of the assessee, we deem it a fit case to restore all the four appeals before Learned CIT(A), for effective adjudication of the issues involved, especially when the plea is that certain additional evidences, which the appellant claims to have not been produced there, need to be produced.
12. Ld. DR for the department has relied on decision in Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 393 (Agra- Tribunal), while opposing the submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant for restoration of the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A), on the ground that five notices were issued to the assessee u/s 250 of the Act, but he did not comply with the same and also because he has not furnished any sufficient cause for the said non compliance.
13. In Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. case (supra), several adjournments were stated to have been sought by the appellant, and the assessee or his counsel having not put in appearance before Learned CIT(A), ex-parte order passed u/s 144 of the Act, came to be confirmed.
14. Herein, it is not a case of the department that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings before A.O. As noticed above, submission for restoration of the appeals before Learned CIT(A) has been made on the ground that the Authorized Representative engaged before 463 To 465/JPR/2025 Sh. Pawan Gupta, Kota. Learned CIT(A) did not communicate or contact the appellant after receipt of the notices on email IDs. In Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. case (supra), it was held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice and that the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A) were justified in proceedings ex- parte against the assessee in absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee.
15. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present four matters, and the above discussion, we deem it a fit case to restore all the four appeals files before Learned CIT(A) for their decision afresh, after providing another opportunity of being heard to the appellant. However, keeping in view non compliance by the appellant, with no response to any of the five notices issues during the period on 13.09.2024 to 26.12.2024, and that the appellant was himself not diligent in regularly contacting the AR engaged to pursue the four appeals, we deem it a fit case to burden the appellant with costs of Rs. 6,000/- in each appeal. Accordingly appellant to deposit costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The appellant to deposit costs and produce receipt before Learned CIT(A), before commencement of the proceedings there, on remand.