SHREEJEE UDYOG,BAGRU vs. ITO, WARD-7(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the 2 CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF. (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.)

The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO, without deciding the case on merits and arbitrarily rejecting the appeal for non-prosecution.’’

1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 371 days in filing the appeal for which the partner of the assessee firm Shri Jagdish Prasad Jat has filed the following affidavit narrating therein the reason for such delay in filing the appeal. ‘’1. That the assessment of M/s Shreejee Udyog was completed on 01.12.2019 Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur, making an addition of Rs. 7,75,910/

That an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of assessment which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2023. 3. That simultaneously the assessee had also opted for VSVT, 2020 and had filed Form-1 & 2 on 30.03 2021. It received Form-3 on 30.09.2021, six months after filing Form 1& 2. 4. It had deposited a total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards the tax liability.

In the meantime, the accountant of the firm, Shri Niranjan Sharma, left the job and shifted to Gurgaon. The assessee was given to believe that the dispute has been settled

The work relating to filing of appeal and opting for VSVT, 2020 and its follow-up was entrusted to Shri Niranjan Sharma and it was in his exclusive knowledge and only he had knowledge and access to the ITBA portal and the mail id of the firm. All the partners of the assessee firm are 3 10. That the delay in filing the appeal was on account of non- communication of the appellate order and was unintentional and there was no malafide intention in non-filing of the same

3 During the course of hearing, the grievance of the ld.AR of the assessee was that the ld. Addl/ JCIT(A) has confirmed the addition without disposing off the appeal on merits. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO made an addition of Rs.7,75,910/- in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not furnished any documents, cash book and any other document in the course of assessment proceedings which has been confirmed by the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A) as the assessee did not respond to the various notices sent by the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A). From the records, the Bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue, but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing its case.However, we are of the view 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 AO 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

izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 356/JPR/2025}