RANJEET SINGH SAINI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio inasmuch as the provisions laid down u/s 148A(b) has not been adhered to, meaning thereby the proceedings initiated against the assessee is in gross violation of statutory prescription of not less than seven days’ notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 17th March 2022 seeking compliance up to 23rd March, 2022 thereby providing only five days to respond to the said notice which is contrary to the statutory mandate of ‘not less than seven days’ to be provided to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice, thus, the entire proceedings are void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed.

Relief Sought: It is humbly requested that the proceedings initiated in violation of statute may kindly be declared as void-ab-initio, bad-in-law and illegal and the consequential addition of Rs.1,14,88,500/- may kindly be deleted.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur which is violative of and contrary to Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, therefore, it is prayed that the assessment order may kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed.

5. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, it is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ClT (Appeal) is not justified in passing the order and confirming the additions in an exparte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without independently deciding the grounds on merit and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) is liable to be declared as illegal and bad-in-law. It is prayed that the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be declared as illegal and bad-in-law on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.U, NFAC, Delhi has erred on facts and in law in 30,07,982/- making addition of Rs. 29,08,500/- by invoking Section 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts and the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the same and therefore, the invocation of Section 69A is contrary to facts and law and hence, liable to be deleted. It is prayed that the addition of Rs.29,08,500/- may kindly be deleted.

9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 3. Briefly stated, the assessee herein is an individual, engaged in the proprietary business of wholesale and retail trade. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned Profits and Gains from Business & Profession and Income from Other Sources. As per the information available in the ITBA System (Income Tax Business Application Software) which has been identified and flagged under Risk Management Strategy formulated by the Board, the assessee had made cash deposits in Bank accounts of Rs. 65,80,000/-, Interest other than interest on securities of Rs.20,00,000/-, Investment in the form of Time Deposits Rs.17,33,500/-, consideration in lieu of sale of immovable property Rs. 74,928/- during the F.Y. 2017-18. Since the assessee has not filed the ITR the income chargeable to tax being more than 50 lakhs has escaped assessment, considering the material available on record and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case after providing opportunities to the assessee, with prior approval of the appropriate authorities, notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022. The assessment thereafter has been completed with certain additions to the tune of Rs.1,19,08,730/-, which are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of an appeal, however, due to non-compliance by the assessee despite sufficient opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 4. Aggrieved with the dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred to carry the matter before ITAT, which is under consideration in the present case.

1.1 The notices of hearing were issued electronically under section 250 of the Act and the appellant was requested to furnish written submissions on ITBA module, as per the detail given hereunder: Date of issue of Requisite date of Date of compliance Remarks, if any notice of hearing Compliance (on or before) 01/05/2023 Enablement of - -- Communication 03/10/2024 18/10/2024 No Compliance -- 21/10/2024 28/10/2024 No Compliance -- 30/10/2024 06/11/2024 Seeking -- adjournment 07/11/2024 22/11/2024 No Compliance -- 26/11/2024 02/12/2024 No Compliance --

The appeal is disposed after considering the facts on record, on the issue, in the succeeding paras. 8. Further, on perusal of Form-35, it is seen that appellant has neither attached/uploaded any submission nor submitted evidences/document/ Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur explanation in support of facts and grounds of appeal

. Despite being given many opportunities, appellant did not respond during appellate proceeding, nor furnished requisite details/explanations which were required to adjudicate the present appeal.

9. In the present case appellant has been provided sufficient opportunities but appellant failed to submit any submission or evidence during appellate proceedings in support of grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts and remained non-compliant, therefore, in view of the above facts, I am constrained to uphold the order of the AO. As a result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.

6. On perusal of the aforesaid order by Ld. CIT(A) and the contention raised by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee that due to non- receipt of notice / communications from the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was unable to make necessary compliances on the designated dates, therefore, the substantial facts of the matter could not be brought to the knowledge of First Appellate Authority, consequently, the appeal was decided without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. It was, therefore, the prayer that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with one last opportunity to the assessee to represent its case, to be decided denovo on merits, wherein the assessee would be vigilant, proactive and compliant without any fail.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue submitted that the contention raised by the assessee that the communications are not received, therefore, the compliances could not be made before the appellate authority should not be acceded to as the assessee had responded to the notice dated 30.10.2024 seeking adjournment, therefore, it is a proven fact that assessee was in receipt of communications but had not responded by adopting an evasive approach. Accordingly, no further chances shall be provided to such assessee’s for misusing the government machinery at his own volition. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of revenue authorities and requested to uphold.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances involved in all the captioned appeals. After careful perusal of the documents on record, we find that the assessee had assailed the legal ground as aforestated, however, the fact of the matter is that on perusal of the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years before us, it is also evident from Para 3 that there has been no compliance by the assessee before the said authority and as such, an ex-parte order was passed for the concerned years in appeal. Admittedly, as per record, sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assesse, however, there was no compliance by the assessee. In effect, rights and liabilities of the parties herein are yet to be adjudicated substantially at the level of the first appellate authority. Though in the impugned orders, discussion has been done as per material available on record by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but they are only Form 35, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and the assessment order. However, due to non-compliance by the assessee, there are no submissions, evidence and documents submitted for adjudication by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). That as per Para 3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order, there has been no compliance on the part of the assessee for submitting detailed explanations regarding the grounds of appeal for the years under consideration which clearly shows that the grounds of appeal raised before the first appellate authority has not been substantiated on merits through corroborative evidence /submissions.

8. That in such scenario we are of the considered view that the Income tax Act is within the ambit of welfare legislation which are completely different from that of the penal legislation, therefore, benefit of doubt whenever arises, it has to be interpreted in favour of the assessee tax payer within the parameters of law and facts. There may be circumstances beyond control of the assessee because of which, the assessee may not have been able to represent his case on the given Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Though it is correct that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, however, nothing is there on record which suggests any deliberate non-compliance or malafide conduct of the assessee. That further, if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent his case before the first appellate authority, the position of the revenue will also not be jeopardized.

10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union AIR 1999 SC 564, wherein the Supreme Court inter-alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi-alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case had referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar 1969 1 SCC 591, wherein the Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case the grounds of appeal were simply filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) they were not substantiated or corroborated through submissions and filing of documentary evidences since the assessee had not complied before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, as per framework of the Act there must be adjudication on merits by the first appellate authority and one final opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent his matter on merits in the interest of natural justice.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur 12. There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being ex-parte, the Tribunal may decide the legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) provides that any legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and is established through legal principles, the assessee can take up and raise such legal issue at any appellate forum irrespective of whether the assessee had raised such legal issue at the sub-ordinate level or not, however, it always depends on facts and circumstances of each case whether the Tribunal would decide the legal ground or in a case where the question is of natural justice and ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) the Tribunal would remand it back to Ld.CIT(Appeals) providing final opportunity to a bonafide assessee. The Tribunal as the highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte and some legal ground is raised and if the Tribunal decides such legal ground where in fact principles of natural justice is left unanswered due to the fact that the impugned order before the Tribunal is ex- parte and there was no compliance by the assessee in such scenario the Tribunal would also be usurping the power of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which is also a statutory authority as per the Act. This is due to the reason that as per framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every ex-parte order passed by the Ld.

Ranjeet Singh Saini Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Raipur CIT(Appeals), of course due to non-compliance by the assessee, if the Tribunal adjudicates a legal ground, for instance validity of assessment or reassessment order and answers it in favour of the assessee then it would create an easy route for assessee getting redressal from Tribunal even without bothering to comply with hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). This would dismantle the structure of the Act which is definitely not the intention of the legislature. Here in this situation, where the benefit of doubt is given to the assessee since he had not complied with the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which resulted in passing of an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), in such scenario, as per the scheme of the Act and following the principles of natural justice, the only course of action is to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, respectfully following the aforesaid decision in the case of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria (supra), the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and matter is restored back to his

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/04/2025.