RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

3 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT 16.11.2017, pertaining to other two assessment years 2013-14 and 2014- 15. 4. Assessment orders were passed after conducting assessment proceedings which followed search and seizure operation carried out u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The search and seizure operation was carried out on 03.04.2013 at various premises of Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Katta & Dinesh Agarwal Group. As observed in the assessment orders, residential premises No. 137 Radha Damodar Ki Gali, Choura Rasta, Jaipur, of the assessee-appellant herein, was also covered by the search and seizure operation.. 5. Earlier, the assessee had filed his regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Upon service of notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee furnished his fresh return of income. Then, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act and separate notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. Upon said notices, the assessee furnished documents, books of account and desired details. 6. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed four assessment orders i.e. one in respect of each of assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Vide impugned 4 orders, the appeals filed by the assessee

4 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT against those assessment orders came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A) in limine. That is why, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. 7. Arguments heard. File perused. 8. As noticed above, all the four appeals came to be dismissed, while observing that the same were barred by limitation. Learned CIT(A) has observed in the impugned orders that in Form 35, the assessee-appellant mentioned that he had filed appeals manually on 06.05.2016, and further that the same were filed online as per order by the Hon’ble ITAT, while remanding matters. 9. It may be mentioned here that this is the second round of the litigation by the assessee before this Appellate Tribunal. In the first round, ITAs No. 417 to 423/JP/2019 were filed by the assessee, before this Appellate Tribunal, challenging composite order dated 10.07.2018 passed by Learned CIT(A). While disposing of those appeals for statistical purposes, vide order dated 08.11.2019, this Appellate Tribunal observed that there was a delay of 6 days in filing the earlier 4 appeals before Learned CIT(A), relating to the same assessment years, and that delay was not condoned for want of an application for condonation of delay.

5 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT It was further observed that those appeals were dismissed by Learned CIT(A) as the assessee had not furnished those appeal by e-filing. In the given facts and circumstances, this Appellate Tribunal set aside the composite impugned orders dated 10.07.2018, and two other separate orders dated 16.11.2017, relating to assessment year 2013-14 and 2014- 15 respectively. At the same time, this Appellate Tribunal directed Learned CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee so as to explain the cause of delay of 6 days in filing of the appeals, relating to assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 10. On remand of the matters, the appellant put in appearance before Learned CIT(A). There, on 11.03.2024, the appellant presented on ITBA portal, applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the four appeals. In those applications, the assessee alleged that the appeals could not be presented before Learned CIT(A) due to illness of the assessee and further that there being no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, the delay be condoned. 11. Vide impugned orders, while dismissing the appeals in limine, Learned CIT(A) observed that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 08.11.2019 allowed the assessee to file an appeal electronically, but he

6 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT filed the same on 23.12.2019 i.e. after 45 days of passing of the order by the Appellate Tribunal. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that when the matter was remanded by this Appellate Tribunal to Learned CIT(A), no specific date was granted for appearance of the assessee-appellant before Learned CIT(A). Even though the assessee-appellant should have preferred appeals electronically within a reasonable time of the remand of the matter, and same were filed after 45 days of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, i.e. beyond the prescribed period of 30 days in filing of appeal before Learned CIT(A), it was not a factor to be considered by Learned CIT(A) at that point of time, and in the given situation.. 12. It is true that applications seeking condonation of delay came to be presented before Learned CIT(A) on remand of the matter on 11.03.2024. From said conduct, it can be safely be said that appropriate steps were not taken on behalf of the appellant to file applications seeking condonation of delay with alacrity and diligence. Ld. AR for the assessee representing the assessee-appellant before us submits that some other AR was engaged by the assessee for the purpose of appeals before Learned CIT(A).

7 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT When the assessee-appellant had availed of services of Authorized Representative in filing and perusing the appeals before Learned CIT(A), said AR was required to take steps diligently, but, the fact remains that the applications seeking condonation of delay, while availing of the opportunity granted by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 08.11.2019, were presented after much delay i.e. on 11.03.2024. 13. While dismissing four appeals in limine, Learned CIT(A) observed that for the first time in the applications seeking condonation of delay, it was alleged that the appeals could not be filed within prescribed period of limitation due to illness of the assessee, and further that no supporting material was furnished by the assessee to justify condonation of delay. Accordingly, Learned CIT(A) observed that the approach of the assessee- appellant reflected that the assessee was taking the matter granted and as a formality. 14. Ld. DR for the department submits that no supporting document was produced by the assessee before Learned CIT(A), and as such, Learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the four appeals in limine, being barred by limitation. 15. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that even though the assessee could not produce any supporting evidence before

8 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT Learned CIT(A) as regards condonation of delay, in the given situation, in case the assessee is granted one more opportunity, the assessee would file affidavit or supporting evidence on this point before Learned CIT(A) without fail, and for that, the matters may be remanded to Learned CIT(A). Ld. DR for the department has no objection to remand of the matters to Learned CIT(A) subject to heavy costs, having regard to the conduct of the assessee before Learned CIT(A). 16. In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the nature of the controversy involved in the matters, we deem it just and appropriate to accede to the request for remand of the matters to Learned CIT(A), so as to grant one more opportunity to the assessee –appellant to furnish supporting material as regards the applications seeking condonation of delay. Keeping in view the conduct of the assessee-appellant before Learned CIT(A), as observed in the impugned orders, and as reflected above, we also deem it just and proper to impose costs on the appellant, while remanding the matters to Learned CIT(A). Result 17. As a result, all the four appeals are disposed of for statistical purpose and matters are remanded to Learned CIT(A) for fresh decision on all the four applications filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, after

9 ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal vs. ACIT granting only one opportunity to the assessee to produce documents in support of these applications. However, the assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2,500/- in each appeal. Costs to be deposited in Prime Minister Relief Fund. Learned CIT(A) to commence the proceedings after production receipts in proof of deposit of cost. Copy of the common judgment be placed in the connected 3 appeals files. Order pronounced in the open court on 01 /08/2024. Sd/- Sd/- 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:- 01/08/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअ ग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 568 to 571/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत