Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order which upheld the addition made by the AO. The dispute relates to assessment year 2013-14 and involves an alleged unaccounted cash payment for a flat purchase. The case was reopened under Section 147 due to information revealed during a search and seizure action.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the demise of the assessee's consultant. While the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for lack of evidence, the Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee should be admitted at the appellate stage, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69, 148, 250, 69A, 68, 46A, 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 44/JP/2025
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 44/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Ajeet Kumar Rampuria ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s Ajay Arts, Ward 7(2), Mahaveer Chock, Tonk Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGPR 3327 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/04/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 20/05/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
On being aggrieved by the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 30/08/2024 the above referred assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 02.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the assessment unit [ for short AO].
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order and deciding the appeal against the assessee without appropriately considering the facts of the case.
Under the fact and circumstances of the case reopening of assessment under the provision of sec 147/148 and consequent the order passed by the Id. AO u/s147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by AO of Rs. 1,05,57,000 in respect of alleged cash payment to PKG Finstock Ltd. for purchase of flat by applying the provision of sec 69. Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming that entire cash of Rs.1,05,57,000 found in search and seizure proceeding at PKG Finstock Ltd. was paid by the assessee for purchase of flat from that company.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the ground of appeal on or before date of hearing.”
3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 77 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:
“Sub.: Request to condone the delay in filing appeal Dear Sir, We draw your kind attention towards order passed by Id. CIT(A) u/s 250 dated 30.08.2024. The assessee could not file appeal within prescribed time limit of 60 days. The reason for non-filing of appeal within prescribed time limit is as under: 1. That the assessee filed appeal before jurisdictional first appeal authority on 27.09.2023 against the addition made by ld. AO in respect alleged cash payment to PKG Finstock Ltd for purchase of flat by considering that entire cash of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- found in search and seizure was paid by the assessee for purchase of flat from PKG Finstock Ltd..
Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO 2. That in faceless regime of appeal proceeding, 4 notices were issued which were received mail id jain mahaveerlal@gmail.com & jain.mahaveerial22@gmail.com Both the email id pertains to erstwhile consultant who is no more since long time. As a result, the Id.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order on 30.08.2024. Therefore, the assessee could not get to know about the issue of notices issued and order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee came to know about the order u/s 250 dated 30.08.2024 when his newly appointed legal counsel checked the portal. As soon he came to know about the order u/s 250, he was advised to file appeal before appellate tribunal.
Therefore now appeal is being filed to your honour. Additional plea to admission of appeal 1. We may submit that since the one of the reason for reopening of case u/s 148 was invalid. The case of the asssessee was reopened for reason as under: "During the course of search & seizure action at the office premises of Anand Rathi Group at Mumbai the information revealed that there was receipt of unaccounted cash of Rs. 105.57 lacs (Rs. 62.07 laes Rs. 43.50 lacs) on a/c of out of books cash generated from sale of flats in Vishawashriya' Project Therefore, it is concluded that the income in the form of payment in cash to purchase of flats to the tune of Rs. 105.57 lacs chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14". On perusal of aforesaid reason, it is submitted that unaccounted money was generated from sale of flat in 'Vishawashriya' project. However the assessce, jointly with his two brother Sh. Anil Rampuriya and Sh. Rampuriya, purchased property in 'Padmavati Colony-II' project at Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur. The reassessment proceeding initiating u/s 148 is absurd and viod ab initio. Had the Id. AO perused the sale deed of the property purchased by the assessee, he would have known about facts the unaccounted cash received by M/s PG Finstock Ltd (Anand Rathi Group) does not pertain to the assessee.
2. Without prejudice to the above, the addition made by ld. AO in assessee's hand is incorrect as the property is jointly owned property with his two brothers and for the similar reason, the case of assessee's brother Sh. Ajay Kumar Rampuriya was also reopened wherein Id. AO has addition only of Rs. 7,57,911/ For this purpose, the assessee also filed rectification application to rectify the mistake apparent from record and pass appropriate rectification order. Copy of rectification application is hereby enclosed as Annexure-"A". However the Id. AO has not considered the same as the assessee has filed appeal. In view of the above, non-acceptance of appeal would result in undue tax liability on the assessee and therefore, we request your honor kindly accept the appeal of the assessee in view of the principle of natural justice. was not fault of the assessee and the counsel who was dealing with the tax matter of the assessee was passed away and the email id was of that consultant and therefore, there is delay and even non compliance before the ld. CIT(A). Based on that he prayed to delay may be condone in the interest of justice.
While hearing of the present appeal ld. DR stated the assessee even did not appear before the ld. AO. Assessee after that provided additional evidence but choose not to appear. Based on that fact ld. DR support the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 77 days has merit as the counsel who was dealing with the tax matter expired and that is why there was delay in the present appeal and even the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex-parte.
The bench noted that in such circumstances assessee has sufficient reason and thereby taking a lenient view on the matter, we condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.
Now, coming to the merits of the case, the brief facts of the case are that there was search & seizure action at the office premises of Anand Rathi Group at Mumbai. The information revealed that there was receipt of unaccounted cash of Rs.105.57 lacs (Rs. 62.07 lacs + Rs. 43.50 lacs) on a/c of out of books cash generated from sale of flats in 'Vishawashriya' Project. Therefore, it was concluded that the income in the form of payment in cash to purchase of flats to the tune of Rs. 105.57 lacs chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2013-14 and accordingly notice dated 28.06.2021 u/s 148 of the Act was issued after duly recording reasons and for the same approval was also accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income tax- II, Jaipur vide letter dated 28.06.2021. Consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2022 in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal and further CBDT Instruction No 1/2022/F.No.
279/Misc./M-51/2022-IT-J dated 11.05.2022, information and material relied upon for initiating reassessment proceedings were provided to the assessee vide Show Cause Notice (SCN) DIN & Letter No: the Income tax Act, 1961 to show a cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- paid to PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd. in cash shall not be treated as unexplained 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 2013-14. The assessee was required to furnish reply on or before 11.06.2022. In response to the notice, no reply has been furnished by the assessee till the assessment order passed. Thus, it was logically concluded by the ld. AO that the assessee has no proper explanation with respect to the above-mentioned escapement of income in his case for the A.Y. 2013-14.
Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is reiterated here in below:
“9. Ground No 3: This ground is raised against the action of the AO in treating the amount of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act.
9.1 Section 69 of the Act reads as under:
Unexplained investments.
Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO opinion of the 80s [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year
9.2 From a perusal of the provisions of section 69A it is clear that the following conditions are required to be met-
(i) The taxpayer is found has made investments
(ii) the investments are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and (iii) the taxpayer offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments, or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer.
9.3 Thus it is seen that in the case of section 68, the assessee should have maintained books of accounts and the sum is found to be credited to the books of account whereas in the case of section 69, the assessee may or may not have maintained books of account but is found to have made investment. However the other essential ingredients of the sections such as the burden of proof with regard to the source of the credits or unexplained money. test of satisfaction, are common to both sections and hence the judicial decisions on section 68 will also be relevant for section 69 respectively with regard to the burden of proof on the assessee to prove the source etc. 9.4 The Burden of proof is on the assessee who is required to offer an explanation to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer so as not to attract the mischief of section 68 or for that matter section 69. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC)
"It seems to us that the correct approach to questions of this kind is this. If there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum or conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assessee himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked, what the source of that money is and to prove that it does not bear the nature of income. The Department is not at this stage required to prove anything. It can ask the assessee to bring any books of account or other documents or evidence pertinent to the explanation if one is furnished, and examine the evidence and the explanation. If the explanation shows that the receipt was not of an income nature, the Department Gannet act unreasonably and reject that explanation to hold that it was income. If, however, the explanation is unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the Department can reject it and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some undisclosed source. The Department does not-then proceed on no evidence, because the fact that there was receipt of money, is itself evidence against the assessee. There is thus prima facie evidence.. against the assessee which he fails to rebut, and being unrebutted, that evidence can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. The very words "an undisclosed source" show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the Department". ii, Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)
"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".
(iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)
"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.
To put it differently, where the nature and source of a receipt whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source." iii. SumatiDayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)
"But, in view of Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there is, prima facie, evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut, the said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee the Department cannot, however, act unreasonably." iv. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)
"The expression 'the assessees offer no explanation" means where the assessees offer no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessees. It is true the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessees as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record, Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion"
9.5 Accordingly, applying the judicial principles outlined in the earlier paragraphs to the facts of the case it is seen that the primary onus to prove the source of the money and necessary evidences to support credit entries u/s 68 or section 69 of the Act is on the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that explanation offered by the assessee should be carefully examined by the AO to ascertain whether all the ingredients of the onus are proved by the assessee or not. The assessee is required to discharge the onus by producing evidence and an explanation that are both comprehensive and accurate.
9.6 In the present case it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per the findings of the AO in the assessment order as there was no compliance to any of the notices issued. Furthermore, even in the present appellate proceedings there has not been any compliance to any of the notices issued on 24.05.2024, 02.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 22.08.2024.. The contentions of the appellant raised in the statement of facts or the grounds of appeal are not backed by any documentary evidence and hence do not merit acceptance. It is for the appellant to submit a detailed explanation along with proper evidence to support the grounds of appeal and to contradict the findings of the A.O in the assessment order, which he has failed to do. No evidence has been submitted to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account. Accordingly, I am left with no option but to conclude that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is upheld and the Ground of Appeal is Not Allowed.
10. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, I am constrained to concur with the AO's findings of fact and decisions thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submissions/documentations even during the instant appellate proceedings, to counter effectively the position Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO adopted by the AO on the concerned issues and reduced in writing in the assessment order. It is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the addition made by the AO is sustained.
11. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is Dismissed.
9. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is before this tribunal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds as stated herein above. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the ground prayed to admit the additional evidence. The bench noted that the application is made as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the same should be in accordance with the rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963. Though the assessee made that prayer which reads as under:
Sub: Production of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 Respected Sir, The present appeal is filed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30.08.2024. In the grounds of appeal, four grounds of appeal were raised, of which ground No. 3 is against the specific addition made and ground no. 1,3 & 4 are general in nature. In ground no. 3 of the appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- in respect of alleged cash payment to PKG Finstock Ltd. for purchase of flat by applying the provision of sec 69.
Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO We would like to mention here that the appellant could not submit relevant details and documents as asked for by the assessing officer during course of the assessment proceeding and the appellant also could not submit his submission before Id. CITIA) as the appellant was not aware of respective proceeding as notices were received on the email account of erstwhile consultant who has demised long back. Therefore assessee is now submitting the following details as additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide this letter: i. Copy of Purchase deed of Flat. ii. Copy of agreement for renovation of flat with Smt. Kavita Joshi. iii. Copy of agreement for renovation of flat with Sh. Ravindra Joshi. iv. Copy of loan disbursement statement v. Copy of affidavits of family members. The above additional evidences are necessary to understand the exact facts and circumstances of the case and its lawful adjudication. We thus request your Honour to kindly admit the same and oblige. Power to admit additional evidence Further, it is settled principle of law that your Honour has the power to admit additional evidence filed by the appellant, if the appellant has sufficient cause for not producing the same during assessment proceedings, to advance the cause of justice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chandra Kant ChanuBhai Patel v. CIT [2011] (13 taxmann.com 131) held that where fresh evidence produced by produced by appellant was without any blemish, then in order to advance cause of justice, evidence was to be admitted. • Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Jai Prakash Tyagi v. IΤΟ (2016) (72 taxmann.com 183) held that where in course of appellate proceedings, assessee produced a valuation report for construction of new house property from registered valuer for claiming deduction under section 54F, Commissioner (Appeals) could not refuse to accept said additional evidence and reject assessee's claim merely on ground that no such claim was made before Assessing Officer. • Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT in the case of Lakshmi Energy & Foods Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2014) (44 taxmann.com 248)held that where assessee had sufficient reasons which prevented it from producing various documents before Assessing officer, documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence.
Thus, in view of the above, we request your Honour to kindly admit the additional evidence produced by the appellant as it is well within the jurisdiction of your Honour.
We may further submit that this additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and is necessary to examine the issue. Thus, it is requested to admit the same in the interest of natural justice under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
To support the contention raised in the prayer for additional evidence the following documents were filed;
S. No. Particular Page No. 01 to 28 1 Copy of Purchase deed of Flat Copy of agreement for renovation of flat with Smt. Kavita Joshi 2 29 to 31
Copy of agreement for renovation of flat with Sh. Ravindra Joshi 3 32 to 34
4 Copy of loan disbursement statement 35 5 Copy of affidavits of family members 36 to 42 6 Copy of rectification application filed on 09.10.2023 43 to 45
S. No. Page No. Particular 7 Copy of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 46 to 52 25.04.2023 passed in case of assessee's brother Sh. Ajay Kumar Rampuria for AY 2013-14 8 Copy of letter dated 17.01.2023 issued by Id. AO in respect of closure of 53 duplicate assessment proceeding 9 Copy of notice u/s 148 dated 22.07.2022 issued under 54 to 55 amended provision of Income Tax Act, 1961
10 Copy of judgments: 56 i. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd vd. ITO [2023] 146 taxmann.com 417 57 to 62 ii. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of M/s Tirupati Construction Company vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 63 to 64 iii. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Smt. Neelam Dubey vs. Union of India [2024] 162 taxmann.com 545 11 Copy of news available on public domain regarding search conducted on 65 to 66 Anand Rathi Group on 24.09.2013
The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee case at the lower authority were exparte. He also admitted that his application is required to be made under rule 29 of the ITAT rules. He prayed that the assessee be given one chance to present his case before the ld. AO in the interest of the justice.
The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee was exparte at both stages. Before ld. CIT(A) he filed the document but did not represent the case by controverting the finding of the ld. AO.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The brief facts related to the dispute are that there was search & From that search information revealed that there was receipt of unaccounted cash of Rs.105.57 lacs (Rs. 62.07 lacs + Rs. 43.50 lacs) on a/c of out of books cash generated from sale of flats in 'Vishawashriya' Project. Therefore, it was concluded that the income in the form of payment in cash to purchase of flats to the tune of Rs. 105.57 lacs chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2013-14 and accordingly notice dated 28.06.2021 u/s 148 of the Act was issued after duly recording reasons and for the same. The assessee was asked to show a cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- paid to PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd. in cash shall not be treated as unexplained Income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was required to furnish a reply on or before 11.06.2022. In response to the notice, no reply was furnished by the assessee till the assessment order passed. Thus, it was logically concluded by the ld. AO that the assessee has no proper explanation with respect to the above- mentioned escapement of income in his case for the A.Y. 2013-14. When CIT(A) reads as follows;
9.6 In the present case it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per the findings of the AO in the assessment order as there was no compliance to any of the notices issued. Furthermore, even in the present appellate proceedings there has not been any compliance to any of the notices issued on 24.05.2024, 02.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 22.08.2024.. The contentions of the appellant raised in the statement of facts or the grounds of appeal are not backed by any documentary evidence and hence do not merit acceptance. It is for the appellant to submit a detailed explanation along with proper evidence to support the grounds of appeal and to contradict the findings of the A.O in the assessment order, which he has failed to do. No evidence has been submitted to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account. Accordingly, I am left with no option but to conclude that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is upheld and the Ground of Appeal is Not Allowed.
Record reveals that the assessee did not file any evidence regarding the disputed amount because in the faceless regime of appeal proceeding, 4 notices were issued which were received mail id jain mahaveerlal@gmail.com & jain.mahaveerial22@gmail.com Both the email id pertains to erstwhile consultant who is no more since long time. As a result, the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order on 30.08.2024. Therefore, the assessee could not get to know about the issue of notices issued and order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench also note that though the assessee should prefere the application under rule 29 to file the additional evidence which were not filed if the same are supposed to be filed before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, in the interest of the substantial justice we considered that prayer under rule 46A as an application under rule 29 and admit those additional evidence which are to be tested by the ld. AO. Considering that peculiar aspect of the matter we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. AO who will consider the factual aspect of the matter and decide the issue after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with the law. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the ld. AO.
Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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:- /05/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Ajeet Kumar Rampuria, Tonk 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward -7(2), Tonk 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 44/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत