PANCHU RAM BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), JAIPUR

That the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the appellant was a victim of fraud perpetrated by his nephew, Mr. Ghanshyam Das, and that no real transaction of sale had taken place.

That the Ld. AO did not consider the legal proceedings and FIR lodged against Mr. Ghanshyam Das and failed to appreciate the subsequent court order dated 22.12.2024 in favor of the appellant. Copy of the FIR and Ball cancellation order is attached herewith as Annexure-4 and Newspapers cuttings as Annexure-5 for yout kind consideration.

That the Hon'ble Court ruled in favor of the appellant on 22.12.2024, acknowledging that Mr. Ghanshyam Das had fraudulently created the sale deed instead of a loan agreement as per the filed agreement before the Hon'ble Court dated 05.11.2024. A copy of the Honorable Court Order with filed agreement before the Hon'ble Court dated 05.11.2024 is attached herewith as Annexure-6 for your kind consideration

That the Ld. AO erred in not considering the material evidence, including loan agreements and the fraudulent nature of the sale deed, while making the assessment.

That the Ld. AO wrongly levied interest under sections 234A, 2348, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without any justification, as no fax liability arises in the absence of an actual sale transaction.’’

1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that there is delay of 576 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an applications dated 21-03-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:- ‘’1. That the appellant has filed the present appeal before the ITAT against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-05-2023. SHRI PANCHU RAM BAIRWA VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR 2. That there is a delay of 576 days in filing the present appeal which was beyond the control of the appellant due to the reasons explained herein below. 3. That the appellant is an illiterate person working as a labour and has limited understanding of tax matters and legal proceedings. 4. That the appellant had engaged a tax professional for handling his case but unfortunately the said professional failed to inform him about passing of the impugned order and the requirement to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. 5. That the appellant became aware of the ld. CIT(A)’s order only when he received a notice from the Income Tax Department regarding the tax demand, after which he immediately sought legal advice and initiated the process of filing this appeal. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but was solely due to lack of knowledge and proper guidance regarding the legal remedy available. 7. That the appellant humbly submit that he has a strong case of merits, and if the delay is not considered he will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 8. That it is well settled law that technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. Prayer: In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble ITAT may kindly condone the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.’’ To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to the delay made in filing the above-mentioned appeal. 2.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s applications for condonation of such inordinate delays and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons as advanced by assessee for condonation of delay in respect of the above mentioned appeal has sufficient reasons to condone the delay which has merit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:-

2 The assessee was provided multiple opportunities by this office to submit documents and make submissions in response to the appeal filed. However, the assessee has not exercised this option despite multiple reminders. The table below indicates the dates and the compliance status of the various notices issued. 5.3 The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known Latin dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT The conduct of the Appellant, as inferred from the aforesaid table, evidences that the Appellant fails on this principle of equity. Even the Hon'ble Courts, in various pronouncements, have frowned upon the Appellants who file appeals but thereafter do not take any further interest in prosecuting those appeals.

3.1 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jhawar Kolkata vs. DCIT-CCXXI (15 March, 2016) (ITA Nos. 450/Kol/2013 for Asstt. Year: 2006-07) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant for non- prosecution

3.2. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) held as under:

3.3. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT ((2008) 296 ITR 495] returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. Accordingly, the additions/disallowances as challenged in the Grounds of Appeal and in the Appeal Memo are hereby confirmed.

5 Based on the above it appears that the assessee is not keen on pursuing the appeal. Accordingly given that this office has not received any information or document so as to make a judgment based on merits, this office is left with no option but to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant for AY 2010-11 is dismissed.’’

2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.19,12,525/- as STCG is not justified for the reason that his nephew Shri Ghanshyam Das fraudulently made him victim and no real transaction had taken place by him. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO did not consider the legal proceedings and FIR lodged against Shri Ghanshyam Das and also failed to appreciate the subsequent Court order dated 22-12-2024 passed in assessee’s favour for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the copy of FIR and Bail cancellation order as annexure A and News paper cutting as Annexure B. The ld. AR further submitted that the Court ruled in favour of the assessee on 22-12-2024 acknowledging that Shri Ghanshaym Das had fraudulently created the sale deed instead of a loan agreement as per the filed agreement before the Court dated 5-11-2024 and the copy of the SHRI PANCHU RAM BAIRWA VS ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR Court order dated 5-11-2024 is filed as Annexure 6. Thus the ld. AR further submitted that the addition so made by the AO needs to be quashed and order passed by the Court should be followed. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee could not advance the documents/ submission to controvert the findings of the AO in spite of multiple opportunities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. It came to the office of the AO from the AST software (BCP/EFS/CIB/AIR Processing/Non filer w.r.t. 26AS)/50C that the assessee had sold two shops situated B-145, Terminal Muhana, Jaipur amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- each during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. The Sub-