Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to their former counsel not informing them about the orders and subsequent communication issues. The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed with sufficient cause, justifying the condonation of the delay. Although the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A), the Tribunal felt that the matter should be decided on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 153A, 68, 115BBE, 80TTA, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A’’ JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka cuke
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A’’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka cuke The ACIT B-536, J.D.A. Colony Vs. Central Circle-3 Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 04 /06 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld CIT(A), Jaipur – 4 dated 11-06-2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 & 2016-17in the matter of Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal.
A.Y. 2015-16 ‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the M. CIT(A) is wrong unjust and has erred in law in passing impugned appellate ender on ex- parte basis without considering material available on record and/or without calling a clarification and/or information from the learned Assessing Officer and therefore he set aside in the interest of justice. 2 That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CTT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in not accepting submission of the appellant that proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law as no incriminating material whatsoever was found in course of search which could suggest any undisclosed income and therefore consequent assessment made u/s 143(3) r/w sec 153A by the ld AO is also wrong and bad in law.
3. That without prejudice to the ground no. No (2) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 13,50,000/- made to the income of the appellant by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash credit from Shri Bhupinder Singh and in further confirming chargeability of said amount of Rs 1350000 u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 4 That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal
or to withdraw any of them.’’ – A.Y. 2016-17 ‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) is wrong. unjust and has erred in law in passing impugned appellate order on ex-parte basis without considering material available on record and/or without calling any clarification and/or information from the learned Assessing Officer and therefore be set aside in the interest of justice
2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in not accepting submission of the appellant that proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law as no incriminating material whatsoever was found in course of search which could suggest any undisclosed income and therefore consequent assessment made u/s 143(3) r/w sec. 153A by the Id AO is also wrong and bad in law.
3. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming following actions and/or findings recorded by the Id Assessing Officer in respect of sale of property at B-531, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- (a) That the first floor in the said property was constructed in FY 2004-05 as against FY 2013-14 in which it was constructed and correctly declared by the appellant. (b) arbitrarily calculating cost of construction on said plot at Rs. 90,000/- by application of adhoc rate of 100 per sq.mtr. as against cost of Rs. 10,80,000/- actually incurred and declared by the appellant. (c) charging tax on capital gain assessed by him on sale of said plot at rate applicable to normal income as against applicable rate of 20% on long term capital gain.
4. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above, the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming disallowance of deduction w/s 80TTA of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 7,314/- in respect of interest on SB Account declared and correctly claimed by the appellant.
That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals of the assessee, the Bench noted that there is delay of 165 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 11-02-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:-
Ref: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. PAN: ABUPN1656J, A.Υ. 2015-16 and 2016-17.
With reference to above, it is requested that the due date of filing the appeal before your honours was 12.08.2024 and delay for the reason that the Appellate Order dated 11.06.2024 was dispatched/sent on e-mail id- natwarcam4@gmail.com to my old counsel but my said counsel did not informed me about the same.
I received a call on my mobile phone from the IT Department for recovery of the outstanding demand on 1 February, 2025 and I contacted my old counsel with reference to the said information. I do not know the reasons for not informing the above said facts to me besides he ignored and lingered on the issue and refused to provide any information even the password of filing the IT return to me.
In view of the said facts, I contacted to the in house Chartered Accountant Shri Nitish Kumawat of M/s Chokhi Dhani Groups. Shri Nitish Kumawat, CA then contacted to the counsel of the M/s Chokhi Dhani Group M/s B. Khosla and Company and the new counsel prepared the necessary papers for filing the appeal. As per above fact, there was no conscious default on my part in filing the appeal within due date and humbly prays that for other defaults, I should not be penalized.
An affidavit in support of the supra submitted facts is enclosed herewith. It, is therefore, humbly prayed to your honours that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and obliged. Sorry for inconvenience caused to your honours.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR vehemently denied that there is no such call made from the office of TRO, Central, Jaipur for recovery of the outstanding demand for which the ld. DR has also filed a letter dated 30-04-2025 enclosing therewith a letter No. Jaipur/2024-25/24 dated 20/21- 04-2025 issued by the TRO, Jaipur. The ld.DR further submitted that the Department does not make telephone call on such issue.
2.3 In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that here the issue may not be considered as to whether the revenue officer contacted over phone for recovery or not but the fact is not disputed that the assessee never been served the copy of the order and notices and that is the reasons for non compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and delay in filling the present appeal.
2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The object of the Bench is to provide natural justice to the assessee which we have observed that in the present case is missing. Thus, Bench feels that there is different view of both the sides on the issue of delay in filing the appeals by the assessee, however, with a view to providing justice and to dispose off the case on merit the Bench adopts the lenient view and accordingly condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us.
3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in Bench noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order giving 05 opportunities to the assessee and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
‘’5. Ground of Appeal
No. 1 is as under: Ground No.
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grosslyerred in law in completing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 even when no incriminating material whatsoever found in course of search which could suggest any undisclosed income so as to initiate proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. 5.1 In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and challenged the completion per se of such initiated proceedings. The law in this regard is settled that once the search and seizure action is initiated in the case of any person, the learned AO is required to issue notice under section 153A of the Act or in other words is required to initiate the assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act. In terms of law, irrespective of the facts of the case, it is also settled law that the AO is required to pass the assessment order irrespective of the fact whether the incriminating material has been unearthed during the course of search action or incriminating material has not been unearthed during the course of search action. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed
6. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 & 3 are inter related hence they are clubbed together for adjudication and these grounds are as under: Ground No.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in holding that the appellant has allegedly not been able to substantiate receipt of loan of Rs. 1350000 from Shri Bhupender Singh for repayment of housing loan from Punjab National Bank and thereby treating it as unexplained cash credit and making addition of said amount to the income of the appellant under section 68 of the I.T. Act. 1961 Ground No. 3 The assessing officer is further wrong and has erred in law in holding that addition of Rs. 1350000 made to the income of the appellant shall be chargeable to tax under section 115BBE of the Act, 1961 6.1 It was found that the assessee has shown of having taken a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from Sh. Bhupendra Singh and payment of housing loan was made out of the same whereas the loan from Sh. Bhupendra Singh was found to be unsubstantiated. No interest payment was evident from the bank account of the assessee. The assessee vide show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 was requested to furnish the confirmation of the said loan but no reply was furnished by the assessee which makes it clear that assessee has nothing to say in this regard. The assessee didn't provide any substantial evidence for the said loan from Sh. Bhupendra Singh, The assessee on his own volition did not even attempt to provide the complete details during the course of assessment proceedings as well as filing of return of income u/s 139(1) & 153A During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal
. Where the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source (CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964]
53. ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958]
34. ITR 807 (SC)). In the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under- "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income This was laid down as far back as 1958 when this court pointed out in A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commisioner of Income-tax [1958]
34. ITR 807 810 (SC) that "There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963]
50. ITR
1. (SC)[08-02-1963] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under- ‘’It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act in the absence of such proof the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income see A Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956]
34. ITR 807 (SC)’’ Referring to the above judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), Mumbai [2018] 90 taxmann.com
16. (Mumbai-Trib.) as under:- 3.2 As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the case of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee, is on him and where it is not satisfactorily explained, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is Income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in CIT v. M. Ganpati Mudaliar [1964]
53. ITR 623 (SC)A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958]
34. ITR 807 (SC) and also CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1969]
72. ITR 807 (SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmal [1973]
67. ITR 349 (SC) further throws light on the issue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman
20. (Raj.) The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct….’’ (Emphasis Supplied) Based on the material available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are dismissed
7. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground No.
4. That the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the I.T Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law and is not correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore the AO is directed to give effect of the same on the income determined vide this appellate order Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant on this issue is disposed off
8. Ground of Appeal No. 5 is as under:
Ground No. 5: The assessee craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to with draw any of them. 8.1 The appellant has not added or altered any of the above mentioned grounds of appeal. Accordingly such mention by the appellant in its ground is treated as general in nature, not needing any specific adjudication and is accordingly treated as disposed off
9. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed the following written submission with the prayer to condone the delay and also remand back the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merit;
W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N S Hon’ble Madam/Sir,
1. The above appeal has been filed by assessee against the ex-parte appeal order dated 11-06-2024 passed by CIT (A)-4, Jaipur in appeal No. 4/11149/2019-20. It is submitted that there is a delay in filling of appeal by 165 days. In this connection we have been directed to submit that for the A.Y. 2015-16, the Ld.CIT(A)-4, Jaipur passed an ex parte order confirming the order of the Assessing officer on the ground that no submission filed by appellant during the course of appeal proceedings. That all the notice(s) fixing the date of hearing as mentioned at page no 3 of appeal order were delivered on the email ID natwarcam4@gmail.com. The above said email id pertains to assessee’s old counsel but the said counsel did not inform to assessee about the same.
2. Thereafter appellant received a call on his mobile phone from the IT Department for recovery of the outstanding demand on 31stJanuary, 2025 and he contacted his old counsel with reference to the said information. The appellant does not know the reasons for not informing the above said facts to appellant besides he ignored and lingered on the issue and refused to provide any information even the password of filing the IT return to him. In view of the said facts, appellant contacted to the in house Chartered Accountant Shri Nitish Kumawat of M/s Chokhi Dhani Groups. Shri Nitish Kumawat, CA then contacted to the counsel of the M/s Chokhi Dhani Group M/s B. Khosla and Company and the new counsel prepared the necessary papers for filing the appeal. Finally the appeal has been filed on 17-02-2025 with a delay of 165 days. As per above fact, there was no conscious default on assessee’ s part in filing the appeal within due date and humbly prays that for other defaults, appellant should not be penalized. An affidavit of assessee in this regard certifying the above said facts is enclosed herewith.
3. (i) It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judicial pronouncements including that ofCollector Land Acquisition vs M. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 has heldthat delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if there is sufficient cause for the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that a liberal view may be taken on this issue since the primary duty of the Courts is to dispense justice and not to dismiss appeals on mere technicalities. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions in case of United Christmas Celebration Committee Charitable Trust vs. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 372 (Mad), Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO, (2017) 152 DTR (Mad) 8, Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom). It was accordingly submitted that the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay may be accepted and appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. ii. The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur in the case of Shri Kishan Lal vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Kota, (ITA NO. 732/JPR/2018) dated 16-09-2020 held that: “It was submitted that the assessee completely remained in good faith of his regular tax consultant upon whom he was fully dependent and therefore the delay was not attributable to him. It was only because of some confusion/ wrong impression being carried by the ld. Counsel Shri Arvind Goyal, CA that the remedy against the order passed by the ld CIT(A) lies before the Pr CIT, Kota as against the Tribunal. However this has prejudiced the assessee’s valuable rights and despite having a good case in his favour on merits, unfortunately delay has occurred. That by not filing the present appeal or by a delayed filing thereof, the applicant assessee was not going to gain anything. The conduct of the applicant assessee was not therefore, contumacious or dishonest. Hence there was no deliberate intention on his part to delay the filing of the present appeal.
In case of United Christmas Celebration Committee Charitable Trust vs. ITO (Supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 1631 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(A) refusing registration u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon’ble High Court has held that in dealing with the matter, not only the period of delay has to be taken into account but also the quality of the explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to the litigant, and the detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party. These are aspects, if, looked at, closely, will enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the delay was intentional and/or deliberate. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that even though the period of delay is large, it is inclined to condone the delay especially in the circumstances of the present case for the reason that if the assessee would succeed on merits, it could hardly be said that it would cause detriment to the Revenue in the matter involving grant of registration.
Further, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has condoned the delay of 1902 days in filing the appeal against the ld. CIT(A)’s order refusing the grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon’ble High Court has held that no doubt, the delay has to be explained with proper reasons but it does not mean that every day’s delay must be explained. The Court must take a pragmatic view in appreciating the reasons attributable to the delay caused to the party to approach the Court of law and no pedantic view or approach to be adopted by the Court in considering the reasons given by the parties for delay in approaching the Court. In light of above discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee in his averments has made out a clear case that there was sufficient cause which being beyond his control, prevented him from filing the present appeal in time before the Tribunal. The assessee was diligent and has sought advice from his Counsels from time to time and was not guilty of negligence on his part and it cannot be said that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, which could have been avoided by the assessee if he had exercised due care and attention. We find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and he does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay of 489 days in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Therefore, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 489 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits.
iii. Further Hon’ble Coordinate ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Bench in the case of Blossom Vs CIT, Exemption, Jaipur (ITA No. 405/JP/2024) Dated 02-07-2024 condone the delay of 197 days by holding that “We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 197 days though lapses and latches on the part of the parties in preparation and filling the appeal in time but considering the only fact that the same was prepared and sent for signature and where the same was misplaced and the same is supported by the affidavit of the counsel and accountant. It is very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for condonation of the delay in filing appeals and rather follow a pragmatic line to advance substantial justice. Based on this aspect and considering the three affidavits filed the delay of 197 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause only on the reasons that on the lapses of the persons the institution should not suffer In view of the above facts and circumstances the case the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasons in not filling the appeal in statutory time limit and also not complying the notice(s) received from CIT (A). Thus there was no conscious default on the part of appellant in compliance the terms of the statutory notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In the circumstances it is prayed to your honor that the delay in filling of appeal by 165 days may kindly be condone and matter may kindly be set aside/remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. ‘’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), she also submitted that even though the assessee was given five opportunities of hearing by the ld. CIT(A) yet she supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.13,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee in spite of providing as much as five opportunities. However, the ld. AR of the during the course of hearing prayed that he may be given one more chance to adduce the documents / submission before the ld. CIT(A) to dispel the dispute in question. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he 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 his 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 the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) 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 of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesseein A. Y. 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 Now coming to the appeal of the assessee in for the assessment year 2016-17. The bench noted that the case in is similar to the facts of the case in and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 205/JPR/2025 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds and arguments raised by both the parties. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka in ITA No. 205/JPR/2025. 5.1 In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in also allowedfor statistical purposes.
6.0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04 /06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/06/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka. Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 204& 205/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@By order
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत