Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sh. Mahesh Mordia cuke DCIT, Vs. 301, B-2, Anukampa Atlantis, 22 Central Circle-1, Godam, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AINPM0101F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms Ruchika Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03/06/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/06/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-4 dated 26.12.2023 [Here in after referred as “CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arise from the order dated 05.12.2019 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-5(4), Jaipur. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:-
Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the order being against the principles of natural justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 64,59,100 being unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 64,59,100.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in not accepting declared turnover of Rs. 38,60,505 u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the declared turnover of the assessee.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making an addition of Rs. 40,52,611 as unexplained credit entries under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 40,52,611.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making an addition of Rs. 16,25,800 as unexplained agricultural income u/s 10(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 16,25,800.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in disallowing interest of Rs. 2,00,000 claimed u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the said interest of Rs. 2,00,000.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 claimed u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id.
Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the said deduction of Rs. 1,50,000. 9. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,94,320/-. The assessee declared agriculture income of Rs.16,25,800/-. During the year under consideration, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was generated by system on 21.09.2018 and the same was served upon the assessee. Further, the case has been transferred to ITO, ward 5(4), Jaipur vide order u/s 127 of the IT Act. On change of incumbent notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 06/09/2019 along with questionnaire and the case was fixed for hearing on 13.09.2019. On the date of hearing neither assessee attended nor filed any information. Further a letter was issued for furnishing of information on 28.09.2019 and the case was fixed for hearing on 03.10.2019 but on the date of hearing ld. AR of the assessee requested for adjournment and the case adjourned to 11.10.2019. On date of hearing the assessee has not submitted reply of notice hence further show cause notice issued on dated 18.11.2019. Finally, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act
Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT vide order dated 05.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 1,29,81,831/- in the manner as under:-
Returned income Rs. 4,94,320/- Additions: Rs. 64,59,100/-
1. 1. Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit into bank as discussed above paras 2. Addition on account of unexplained credit entries of as Rs. 40,52,611/- discussed above paras 3. Addition on account of bogus agriculture income as Rs. 16,25,800/- discussed above paras 4. Addition on account of bogus interest u/s 24(b) as discussed Rs. 2,00,000/- above paras.
1. Disallowance of bogus claim under Chap-VIA as Rs. 1,50,000/- disussed above paras 2. Total Rs. 1,29,81,831/-
Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:-
“Ground No. 2. I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal. There is substantial evidence on record in support of the assessment order. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 7.2 I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the finding of the AO. It is specialty served here that inspite of giving many opportunity of being heard to the appellant as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal. There is substantial evidence on record in support of the assessment order. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO. Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are dismissed. Ground No. 5 8.2 I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal. There is substantial evidence on record in support of the assessment order. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 6
Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT 9.2 I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal There is substantial evidence on record in support of the assessment order. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 7 10.2 I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidences to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that inspite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submissions or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal. There is substantial evidence on record in support of the assessment order. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.”
5. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT (A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO both have passed the order ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, looking, to this aspect of the matter the assessee may be Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. AO on merits as the orders of the both the authority are ex- parte and the assessee prayed to grant one chance to submit the correct details in connection with the merits of his case. In support of his submission the assesee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for not appearing before both the lower Authorities. which is reproduced as under :-
“ I Mahesh Mordia S/o Parasram Mordia, aged 44 years, r/o 301, B-2, Anukampa Atlantis, 22 Godam, Jaipur, do hereby, declare on oath as under:-
1. 1. That I am regularly assessed to tax and my PAN is AINPM0101F.
2. That I am actively involved in politics. I contested the election for Rajasthan State Assembly, held in December, 2023, from the Dhod, Silar (Rajasthan) constituency on the ticket of Rashtriya Loktantrik party.
3. That due to may active involvement in the electioneering, I could not pay attention to the appellate proceedings which were going on before the National faceless Appeal Centre during that period.
4. That on account of me being preoccupied in elections I could not ckeck the notices on my email and, consequently the proceedings before National Faceless Appeal Centre remained unattended and my appeal was dismissed ex-parte.
5. That in the proceedings before ld. Assessing Officer I had informed my counsel who has appeared on my behalf. However, certain details at that time could not be furnished by me.
6. That I undertake to diligently attend the proceedings before the ld. Lower authorities if the matter is set aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT 6. Per contra, ld. DR objected to the prayer of the assessee and submitted that the assessee did not represent case before the ld. AO and as well before the CIT(A) both stages and now assessee praying for equity and justice. Therefore, in that case if the Bench feels the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer then with fine.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted from the submission of Ld. AR of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits and the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer is also ex-parte. Considering the arguments advanced before us supported by an affidavit filed, we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer in the interest of justice, who will examine the issue afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee. Thus, prayer of the assessee is considered and is provided one more chance to represent the facts before the ld. AO. The object of the Bench is to provide justice. Thus, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO for afresh adjudication of the case.
Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as Sh. Mahesh Mordia vs. DCIT having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/06/2024.