DARGAH HAZRAT MEERAN SAHIB,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 430/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee is a "Dargah" and its Secretary-authorized representative did not diligently pursue the matters, and the impugned orders were not served by speed post. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite opportunities. However, considering the nature of the issues, non-appearance, the fact that the matter pertains to a "Dargah", and the Secretary's non-compliance, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand all three matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal, totaling Rs. 6,000/-, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, with proof of deposit to be produced before the Assessing Officer before commencement of proceedings on remand. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer, filed appeals before the ITAT against orders passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2018-19. The assessee claimed the impugned orders were not served by speed post and came to their notice only upon receipt of recovery notices. The Secretary of the Dargah, the authorized representative, did not diligently pursue the matters and remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The assessee sought to furnish additional evidence and requested a remand to the Assessing Officer. The revenue did not oppose the application for additional evidence or remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the circumstances of non-service of orders and the nature of the assessee. (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the matters should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's non-compliance and the request for additional evidence. (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the impugned orders were not properly served, leading to a lack of knowledge of the dismissal of appeals. The Secretary's age and lack of knowledge contributed to non-compliance. The additional evidence sought to be produced is crucial for adjudication, and therefore, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer. The assessee relied on the fact that they are a "Dargah" and sought condonation of delay due to these circumstances. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue did not submit any material on record contrary to the assessee's testimony regarding non-service of orders. The Ld. DR for the department did not put forth any submission opposing the application for additional evidence or for remand of the matters to the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :03/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

The above captioned three appeals have been filed by the assessee, as his three appeals filed before Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( in short “NFAC”), have been dismissed, while sustaining all three assessment orders, vide separate three orders relating to different assessment years. to 431/JPR/2025 Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer.

2.

The Assessing Officer passed assessment orders, relating to the assessment years 2013-14, 2016-17 and 2018-19. As regards the first mentioned assessment year, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 23.09.2021 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), computing total income of the assessee, while making two additions as discussed in para 8 and 9 thereof. As regards the second mentioned assessment year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee, by passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, making addition in respect of unexplained investment, while attracting provisions of section 69 of the Act. So far as third assessment year 2018-19, is concerned, vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee by making two addition i.e. one related to unexplained cash credit, u/s 69A of the Act and the other regarding unexplained cash deposits surplus..

3.

As mentioned above, all the three appeals filed by the assessee against three assessment orders stand dismissed. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. to 431/JPR/2025 Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer.

4.

Arguments heard. File perused. 5. It may be mentioned here that as per deficiency notes made by the registry, came be filed 324 days after the prescribed period; 171 days after the prescribed period; and came to be instituted 324 days after the prescribed period of limitation.

6.

Today, Learned AR for the applicant has submitted fresh three separate applications, one in respect of each appeal, seeking condonation of delay, supported by fresh affidavits of the Secretary of the applicant.

7.

While referring to the reasons given in the applications, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that delay in filing of all three appeals may be condoned.

8.

As per applications and affidavits of the Secretary, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) were not served by speed post.

9.

In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the applicant has nowhere specifically alleged in the applications about non delivery of copies of the orders on the registered email ID made available to the office of CIT(A) i.e. on the first page of Form no.

35.

When the applicant wanted communication of notices/correspondence on the said email ID, the office to 431/JPR/2025 Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer. of CIT(A) had to communicate the orders on the said email ID, and accordingly, the communication was made.

10.

It may be mentioned here that in his affidavits, Secretary of the applicant has also testified that it was only on receipt of recovery of notice that the Chartered Accountant was contacted and the factum of dismissal of all three appeals came to their notice. In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not submitted any material on record, contrary to said testimony of the Secretary in the applications and the affidavits. Keeping in view that the applicant is a “Dargah” and its Secretary- authorized representative did not diligently pursue the matters, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. It is ordered accordingly. On merits 11. On going through the record, it transpires that the assessee remained non compliant before the Assessing Officer, by not filing any reply to the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act, and also by not filing of any return of income in response to the first mentioned notice. This is not being disputed on behalf of the appellant. to 431/JPR/2025 Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer.

12.

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) would reveal that the assessee appellant did not comply with four notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A).

13.

It may mentioned here that day before yesterday on behalf of the appellant an application came to be presented to furnish additional evidence. Ld. AR for the appellant submits that the assessee was unable to produce said documents, the assessee having been proceeded ex-parte in the assessment proceedings, and being unaware of the notices issued by the office of CIT(A) due to lack of knowledge and age factor of its Secretary.

14.

Ld. AR has submitted that the documents now sought to be produced are required for adjudication of the issues involved, and as such, matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

15.

In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not put forth any submission opposing the application for additional evidence or for remand of the matters to the Assessing Officer, keeping in view that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the said authorities despite opportunity. to 431/JPR/2025 Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer.

16.

Keeping in view the nature of the issues involved, non appearance of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before Learned CIT(A) in respect of all three matters and that the matter pertains to “Dargah” and that its representative-Secretary remained non compliant despite ample opportunities provided, we deem it a fit case to remand all the three matters to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 17. As a result, all three appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matters are remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh , after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Keeping in view that the Secretary-authorized representative of the appellant remained non compliant before both authorities i.e. Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A), in respect of all three matters despite repeated opportunities, the appellant is burdened with of Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →