RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1442/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18
Sh. Rajkumar Asnani
G-6, Jayanti Market, M.I. Road,
Ward-1(2),
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHPA3918M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 15/01/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member
By way of present appeal, the assessee has challenged order dated
28.01.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (in short “the Act”).
The matter relates to assessment year 2017-18. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while holding that the same was barred by limitation, and the 2
2. Appeal before Learned CIT(A) was filed, while challenging assessment order dated 27.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer whereby total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 8,76,640/-, by making an addition of the same amount, while attracting the provisions of section 44AD of the Act.
It may be mentioned here that present appeal before this Appellate
Tribunal has been filed 243 days, after the prescribed period. In order to seek condonation of said delay, the applicant has filed an application.
In support of the application, assessee has filed his affidavit.
Arguments heard. File perused.
3. So far as the delay in filing of the appeal before this Appellate
Tribunal is concerned, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the order of Learned CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee physically.
As regards, service of the said order by e-mail, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the same might have been served on the e- mail of the authorized representative- earlier counsel engaged by the appellant. Further, it has been submitted that the assessee had disengaged the earlier counsel in the year 2022, and as such, on the portal, updated
3
ID rajasnani0304@gmail.com .
In this regard, our attention has been drawn to Form no. 35 submitted before Learned CIT(A).
Ultimately, Ld. AR has urged that it was only on 25/26.11.2024, that the assessee received information on his mobile phone regarding passing penalty order u/s 271F of the Act, and it was thereupon that the newly engaged counsel appraised him of the dismissal of the appeal filed before
Learned CIT(A).
As noticed above, the impugned order is dated 28.01.2024 and present appeal came to be filed on 29.11.2024. 4. As is available from Form 35, the appellant-applicant had submitted email address as rajasnani0304@gmail.com for communication of notices etc. by way of email, whereas the earlier email address stated to have been furnished by the earlier counsel engaged was different one.
Appellant-applicant has testified on affidavit to have disengaged the previous counsel in the year 2022. Nothing to the contrary has been brought on record by the department.
4
8. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant disengaged the previous counsel in the year 2022. The assessment order was passed on 27.03.2022. We have enquired Ld. AR for the appellant if the assessee has filed any affidavit of the earlier counsel engaged but subsequently disengaged, to support the application/averments put forth before Learned CIT(A), while seeking condonation of delay.
10. Going ahead, we find that before passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. section 144 r.w.s. 144V of the Act, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2021. It was followed by two other notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 18.11.2021 and 14.02.2022, but the assessee did not furnish any return of income or response before the Assessing Officer.
Ultimately, show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 11.03.2022
seeking explanation as to why the cash deposits found to have been made by the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 be not treated as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act.
12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order that the appeal disposed off for statistical purpose, and the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for decision afresh for the purpose of framing of assessment relating to the assessment year 2017-18, after providing one opportunity to the assessee-appellant of being heard. The assessee to appear before the Assessing without fail.
However, in the given facts and circumstances, keeping in view the conduct of the appellant-applicant being non responsive to the notice to the 8
Sh. Rajkumar Asnani vs. ITO issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is burdened with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- . Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund”.
The Assessing Officer to ensure production of receipts in proof of deposit of cost imposed, before commencement of the proceedings pursuant to remand of the matter.
File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/01/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sh. Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1442/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत