PRASHANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JPR, JAIPUR

On verification of data, ld. AO revealed that the assessee received Commission of Rs. 16,33,400/- during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 from the company M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Further on verification of Income Tax Return filed by the assessee, for the year under consideration, it is seen that the assessee has not shown any Commission income for the A.Y. 2018-19 to that extent. In view of these facts, case of the assessee was re-opened for scrutiny after obtaining prior approval from Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. Accordingly Notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act was issued to the assessee on 14/08/2019 which was served on the assessee by e-mail on 14/08/2019 to assessee. The assessee did stipulated time period, therefore on 28/01/2021 notice u/s 142 was issued for filing his return of income, however no return of income was filed by the assessee. Since there was no compliance whatsoever on the part of the assessee, to any of the above-mentioned notices and the assessee has also not filed return of income in response to notices u/s. 148/142(1) thereby the submission / explanation to the final show cause notice issued on 06/09/2021. The non-compliance with all the notices issued indicated only the callous indifference on the part of the assessee. Therefore, Commission received by the assessee of Rs. 16,33,400 /- was added to the total income of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), is reiterated here in below:

7. The Discussion and Decision-Ground-2-Addition of Rs.1633400/- on account of commission receipt-

(a) This ground arises from the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1633400/- in respect of the commission received by the assessee during the year under consideration.

Prashant Singh vs. ITO It is noted from the impugned order that the assessee-appellant had filed the return of Income for the year under consideration on 03.07.2018 with a returned income of Rs. 772670/-. The Ld. AO was in possession of information of receipt of commission income of Rs.1633400/- by the assessee from a company (M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd.) during the year under consideration. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 and the assessee had not filed return in response to the same and neither was there any response/compliance. During the subject reassessment proceedings opportunities of being neard were offered to the assessee by the Ld. AO w.r.t. the above mentioned subject matter, however there was no response from the assessee which compelled the Ld. AO to complete the subject assessment as best judgement assessment based on the details available on record by making addition of Rs. 1633400/- w.r.t. commission of Rs. 1633400/- received by the assessee during the year from the company,

(b) On the other hand, during the course of the present appellate proceedings the appellant was offered several opportunities of being heard from time to time at regular intervals requesting him to make submissions in support of aforementioned grounds duly supported by relevant details/evidences/etc. But, as elaborated in the earlier part of this order there has been absolutely no compliance from the appellant. In fact this is a clear case of total NO COMPLIANCE from the appellant. In other words, it is clearly, forthcoming that the appellant during the present appellate proceedings has not oven argued with any cogent arguments/averments/contentions with supporting relevant details to controvert the observations/findings of the Ld. AO and to negate the conclusions drawn therefrom by the Ld. AO in the impugned order.

(c) At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that there has been no compliance from the appellant to the multiple opportunities offered to him during the course of the present appellate proceedings and apart from GoA/SoF, there is no other material available on record to decipher the contentions/submissions of the appellant in the present appeal. Thus, based on the limited details available on the record, the probable contentions which could be primarily discernible are that the Ld AO NFAC erred in making addition of Rs. 1633400.00 on account of commission receipts in spite of fact that such commission had already been taken in total income declared by him.

In this respect, it is evident that the underlying contentions/submissions/arguments of the appellant cannot be deciphered from the above details. Alternatively also, it is again mentioned that-during the course Prashant Singh vs. ITO of the present appellate proceedings multiple opportunities had been offered to the appellant from time to time but there has been no compliance front the appellant In fact this is a TOTAL NO COMPLIANCE case For this very reason such contentions/claims of the appellant are evidently non-specific and vague as well as fat short of merit since none of them is backed by any specific details/evidences, whatsoever, and thus reduce to merely making plain submissions which are not backed by any evidence or specific details and hence, such bare submissions lack credence for consideration.

Further, it is noted that the Ld. AO has recorded in the impugned order that during the year under consideration the assessee was in receipt of commission of Rs. 1633400.The details available on record indicate that these facts are NOT in dispute. Thus, in other words mentioned that the assessee-appellant has NOT denied the receipt of captioned common of Rs. 1633400/-during the year under consideration

Under such circumstances, the statutory onus was squarely on the assessee to show whether the same has been offered to tax and if so then to provide specific details and working thereof with relevant evidences. It is discernible from the impugned order that the Lo AO had offered multiple opportunities to the assessee during the subject assessment proceedings in this regard, however, there no compliance from the appellant and this compelled the Ld. AO to conclude that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus in this regard. A relevant extract of the impugned order in this respect is reproduced as under:

5 On verification of AIR data, assessee has received Com1933100-during the FY 2017-18 relevant to AV. 2018-19 from the company Future Make Care Pvt. Ltd on which TDS of Rs. 81.870. Further on verification of Income Tax Rum fled by the assessee for the year under consideration, it is seen from the Income Tax Return, that the assessee has not shown any commission income for the AY 2018-19. Therefore, Commission received by the assessee of Rs. 16,33,400/- is added to the total income of the During the course of the present appellate proceedings the appellant has NOT adduced any evidences supporting reason's for such non-compliance during the course of the subject assessment proceedings. Thus, it is evident that the assessment had squarely failed to discharge this onus statutorily cast upon him in this regard. The position has not improved even during the present appellate proceedings as the appellant has merely submitted that such commission of Rs. 1633400/- had already been taken into account in the income however, such submission is neither backed by any specific, details and corresponding workings nor by any evidence even though the appellant was offered several opportunities but there has been ABSOLUTELY NO COMPLIANCE in this case. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the matter it CANNOT be said that the assessee had discharged the statutory onus cast upon him in the present matter.

In this context it would be pertinent to add that as noted in para 5 of this order, the appellant had uploaded an application for admission of additional evidences and the same was not backed by any of such corresponding additional evidences. The fact remains that he has not submitted any detail or adduced even a single piece of evidence during the course of the present appellate proceedings inspite of being offered several opportunities from time to time for the same. However, this aspect of making an application for admission of additional evidences and contents thereof clearly underline that even as per the appellant such details were sine-qua-non for examining underlying corresponding claims. Thus, this submission of the appellant fortifies the conclusion of the Ld. AO and hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the corresponding ground does not succeed, hence, DISMISSED.

8. In the result, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.

Brief Facts of the Case: • The assessee filed his return of income on 03/07/2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 7,72,670/-. • The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. • Subsequently, the case was reopened and an assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 on 17/09/2021, making an addition of Rs. 16,33,400/-. • Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 21/01/2022. • The Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 25/09/2024. Subsequent Development: • It is most respectfully submitted that in the meantime, a fresh reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 has been passed on 06/03/2023 in respect of the same assessment year. • In the said order dated 06/03/2023, the returned income of the assessee as filed originally has been accepted and no addition has been made. (Order Enclosed herewith) • As a result, the impugned assessment order dated 17/09/2021 has been rendered infructuous and stands impliedly quashed. Legal Submissions: • Once a fresh assessment is framed for the same assessment year under the same provision (i.e., u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448), the earlier assessment ceases to survive and becomes non-est in the eyes of law. • The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that if a subsequent valid order is passed for the same assessment year, then any earlier order passed under the same section is deemed to be superseded. Prayer: In light of the above facts and submissions, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned assessment order dated

Subject:- In the appeal pending before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Prashant Singh- (PAN: ANVPS3091B) V/s ITO Ward-1(4), Jaipur , Λ.Υ. 2018-19-reg Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject. In this connection, it is submitted that a report in the above case for the AY 2018-19 has been called for on the submissions/additional evidences furnished by the assessee before your kind good self in support of the grounds of appeal

. The admission of grounds of appeal submitted before your good self Prashant Singh vs. ITO are vehemently opposed as the assessee was provided ample opportunities to furnish the requisite details/documents but it had failed to furnish the same before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, AO made necessary additions/disallowance to the total income of the assessee for the year under reference. Brief details of information collected/ received by the AO: The assessee has filed return of income on 03/07/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,72,670/- The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the LT. Act, 1961. On verification of data, it is revealed that the assessce received Commission of Rs. 16.33.400/- during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 from the company M/Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Further on verification of Income Tax Return filed by the assessce, for the year under consideration, it is seen from the Income Tax Return, that the assessee has not shown any Commission income for the A.Y. 2018-19. So, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1443 on 17.09.2021 at an income of Rs. 24,06,070/-. The assessee then filed the appeal before CITIA), NFAC against the sand assessment order. Meanwhile, a new information was received from the Insight Portal. As per information with received from DDIT(Inv), Rohtak regarding that assessee has received commission of Rs 22,70,870/- from the Ponzi Scheme run by Future Maker Lafe Care Private Limited, which is not shown, received from the Ponzi Scheme run by Future Maker Life Care Private Limited, in his return of income, hence the amount of commission received remains unverifiable. Therefore, a show cause was issued to the assessee, as to why the total transaction amount of Rs.22,70,870/- shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018

19. In response to notice, the assessee has written reply stating that the case has been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AO perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22.70.870/- has not been discussed in assessment order. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable So notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2022 on the basis of undisclosed income of Rs. 22,70,870/ Thereafter, case was transferred to the NFAC for the assessment, the AO, NFAC passed an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 on 06.03.2023 accepting the return income of the assessee, In the order it is mentioned by the AG that any other proceedings going on Prashant Singh vs. ITO against the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 are independent from these proceedings. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 17.09.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that the assessee has not submitted any detail or adduced even a single piece of evidence during the course of the present appellate proceedings inspite of being offered several opportunities from time to time for the same, hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the corresponding ground does not succeed, hence, DISMISSED. Now, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur against the order a/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi In this regard, the assesses contention that the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 should be tendered infructous in view of the subsequent order dated 06.03.20.2.1 is not acceptable As both the assessment orders are passed on the basis of different information. The assessee during the proceedings of Assessment argued that that the case has already been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AU perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22,70,870/ has not been discussed in the previous assessment under. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Thus the grounds taken by the assessee are not tenable, as thoroughly explained above. Hence, assessee’s submission may not be entertained. Report submitted for kind perusal and necessary action please.

So far as the merits of the issue is concerned the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the fresh form no. 26AS wherein the income in name of Future Maker Life Care Private Limited shows plus (+) and thereby minus (-) for an amount of Rs. 11,49,360/- and therefore even on merits since that entry was considered as having been withdrawn from the PAN number of the assessee by that payee i.e. Future Maker Life Care Private Limited no addition is required to be sustained on merits to that extent. When we have gone the report of the ld. AO in the proceeding before us confronting the two assessment on the issue we note the following finding of the ld. AO;

Now, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur against the order a/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi In this regard, the Prashant Singh vs. ITO assesses contention that the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 should be tendered infructous in view of the subsequent order dated 06.03.2023 is not acceptable As both the assessment orders are passed on the basis of different information. The assessee during the proceedings of Assessment argued that the case has already been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AU perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22,70,870/ has not been discussed in the previous assessment under. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Thus the grounds taken by the assessee are not tenable, as thoroughly explained above. Hence, assessee’s submission may not be entertained. Report submitted for kind perusal and necessary action please. The bench noted that the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 22,70,770/- whereas the form no. 26AS filed by the assessee exactly matches with that amount as extracted herein below:

Considering that rival contention we are of the considered view that atleast for the plus and minus entry of the similar amount there is a force in the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee and therefore, that amount is directed to be deleted. But there is no discussion in the report of the ld. AO or that of the submission of the assessee on the other entries reflected in the form no. 26AS. Therefore, we set aside the matter for verifying that the while filling the ITR. Based on that verification ld. AO shall charge the correct income in the hands of the assessee.

In terms of the above observation the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/06/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Prashant Singh, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1340/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत