RAM JEEVAN SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

ITA No. 799/JODH/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Ram Jeevan Soni cuke The ITO 281, Manji Ka Hatta, Paota Vs. Ward- 3(1) Jodhpur – 342 001 (Raj) Jodhpur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABMPS 3201 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Rajendra Sisodia, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 02 / 06 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 01-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte notwithstanding the fact that no notice for hearing was ever served on the assessee. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal o the assessee for non-prosecution whereas in view

2 ITA NO. 799/JODH/2024 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR of Section 250(6) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra, HUF (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO who had arbitrarily rejected the explanation of assesse and not considered the facts of the case in proper perspective.

2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee with following observations. ‘’2. In order to give proper opportunity to the appellant to present its case and to defend the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant, the case was posted for hearing on various dates, the details of which are as under:- Date of notice Date of compliance Status 23-12-2020 28-12-2020 No compliance 04-05-2023 11-05-2023 No compliance 05-07-2023 Final 12-07-2023 No compliance opportunity

3 ITA NO. 799/JODH/2024 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR appellant against the order of the AO and in support of the grounds taken in appeal. 4.1 Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that: "Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it".

4.2 The Delhi Tribunal in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non-prosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.3 Reliance is also placed in the case of Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd Vs. ITO, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT has confirmed even the order of CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer when there was no response to the notices issued. The observations and decision of the Hon'ble ITAT are as under: "We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. In the grounds filed before us, assessee has not raised any such ground about the assessment being time barred. Therefore, since the plea raised by the assessee does not arise out of its grounds of appeal, the same is dismissed. We see no infirmity on the order of CIT(A) which is passed ex-parte due to deliberate non-cooperation of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's appeal is dismissed."

4.4 In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO's order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed.

4 ITA NO. 799/JODH/2024 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee mainly submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte on account of non-prosecution and confirmed the addition made by the AO whereas no notice of hearing was ever served on the assessee. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the written submission containing pags 1 to 11 and also filed following paper book. S.N. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of Notification dated 02-12-2015 1-2 2. Copy of ITR 2017-18 showing the correct email 3 id 3. Screenshot of ITBA Profile details 4 4. Notice of hearing sent by NFAC 5-7 5. Copies of reply filed during assessment 8-9 proceedings 6. Copies of ITR-V alongwith Computation of 10-11 Income for AY 2016-17 7. Copies of ITR-V alongwith Computation of 12-13 Income for AY2017-18 8. Copy of Bank account (UCO Bank) 14-17 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the ld CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order on account of non-prosecution of appeal and thus he dismissed the appeal confirming

5 ITA NO. 799/JODH/2024 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR the addition made by the AO as no written submission had been made by the assesee in support of the grounds taken by him during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to mention that following ground of appeal was raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A):- ‘’Assessing Officer has wrongly added an income as unexplained income, the deposit of Rs.11,50,000/- in bank as it was out of earlier savings of the assessee over the period of time and also appearing in previous returns.’’

The Bench further noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee 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 also 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 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.

6 ITA NO. 799/JODH/2024 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR 2.5 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its 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. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.

Sd/- Sd/- (MITHA LAL MEENA) (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Tk;iqj@Jodhpur fnukad@Dated:- 02 /06 /2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Ram Jeevan Soni, Jodhpur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 799/JODH/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत