RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR
Facts
The appellant, a State Government undertaking, filed six appeals before the CIT(APPEAL), NFAC, which were dismissed due to failure to furnish proper explanation or evidence. The appellant's primary argument was that several notices were missed, leading to the dismissal.
Held
The tribunal noted that the claim of missed notices was raised for the first time in written submissions and not in the original appeals. Despite admitting negligence, the tribunal decided to allow one more opportunity for the appellant to be heard, considering it a state government undertaking.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of appeals by CIT(APPEAL) due to non-response to notices was justified, and if a further opportunity to be heard should be granted.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 434 to 439 /JPR/2024
PER BENCH:
The appellant is a State Government organization –company. In the year 2018, the appellant filed six appeals before ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC. All the appeals came to be dismissed vide impugned orders dated 19.02.2024. While dismissing the appeals, ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC observed that the appellant had failed to furnish document evidence/proper explanation in
2 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT support of its claim as regards the assessment orders passed by ld. AO
relating to the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19
and also as regards the penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income
Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) relating to the Assessment
Years 2010-11 & 2015-16.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned AR for the appellant has referred to table(s) available in
each impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC. Said tables
depict date(s) of issuance of various notices by the said office to the
assessee.
The only submission put forth by ld. AR for the appellant is that
certain notices issued by the said office could not be responded to as the
same skipped attention.
In respect of each appeal, written submission have been put forth by
ld. AR while specifying therein that such and such notice(s) had skipped
the attention.
The only prayer put forth on behalf of the appellant before us is that in
the interest of justice, the matters may be restored to Ld. CIT(APPEAL) for
decision afresh so as to provide to the appellant only one opportunity of
being heard for the purpose of disposal of said appeals.
3 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. Learned DR for the department has also referred to the abovesaid
chart depicting date(s) of notices issued by ld. CIT(APPEAL) from time to
time, to the assessee to provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant,
and submitted that since the appellant failed to respond to several notices
so issued, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld, and all six appeals
be dismissed.
As noticed above, on behalf of the appellant, it has been admitted
that various notices were issued by the office of ld. CIT(APPEAL) NFAC,
and served upon the assesssee.
The only explanation put forth for ‘no response’ to many of said
notices specified in the written submissions, is that that the same skipped
attention.
In this regard, it is significant to note that nowhere in the
memorandam of appeals, this fact has been alleged. In other words, in the
memorandum of appeals, there is no plea that many of said notices
skipped the attention, or that due to said reason, same could not be
responded. Admittedly, this fact has been put forth for the first time, in the
written submissions presented before us.
4 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT Furthermore, in the written submissions, it has not been specified as
to from whose notice, said notices got skipped. Specific plea was required
to be put forth, even in this regard, in the memorandam of appeals.
Secondly, it was required to be specified and proved that such and
such person was responsible to view the portal or e-mails.
However, from the details available in Form No.35 submitted to
CIT(A), it becomes obvious that notices relating to the appeals were
desired to be sent at the email address: anuhal@Kalanico.com.
When receipt of the notices at the above mentioned email address is
admitted, it was for the person concerned having the responsibility to check
and deal with emails received on the said address, to notice the same so
that steps could be taken for response thereto in the appeals.
Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in other appeals pending before
the ld. CIT(APPEAL) NFAC, relating to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-
10, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, written submissions were put forth on 13th Jan, 2023 and 28.03.2023, and that said appeals have not yet been
decided. But, this submission to show alacrity on the part of the assessee
in other appeals, does not come to the aid of the appellant.
5 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT Since the assessee-appellant is State government undertaking, in the
business of mining, processing and trading of mineral and power
generation, special attention is required to be paid to the notices issued by
the office of ld. CIT(APPEAL), so as to respond the same on or before the
given dates, or by participating in the proceedings on the given dates, but
due care and attention was not paid to the notices received from the CIT(A)
so as to respond thereto or for participation in the appeals.
It may be mentioned here that initially, Ld. AR for the appellant put
forth that it was due to ‘mistake’ that notices were not responded to, but,
faced with the number of notices issued and not responded to, he,
ultimately, and very candidly admitted it to be a case of ‘negligence’.
In view of the candid admission and having regard to the fact that the
appellant is a State government undertaking and the after effects of the
dismissal of the appeals vide the impugned orders as regards demands of
tax and penalties, we deem it to be a fit case to accede to the request of
Ld. AR for the appellant for providing of only one opportunity by Ld. CIT(A),
to the appellant, of being heard, so that the matters are effectively
adjudicated on merits. But, in the given situation, we also find it to be a fit
6 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT case to impose on the appellant costs of Rs.1,000/-in respect of each
appeal. Costs to be deposited in Prime Ministers’ Relief Fund.
At this stage, it may be mentioned that as per sub-section (6) of
section 250 of the Act for disposal of the appeal, ld. CIT(APPEAL) is
required to state points for determination, adjudicate each ground/ point
arising in the matters, for disposing of the appeal. As is available from the
impugned orders, Ld. CIT(APPEAL) has not discussed each point for
determination, which led to the framing of the assessment and levy of
penalties, upheld thereby. Result
In view of the discussion and for the reasons recorded above, all six
appeals are disposed of for statistical purposes, and the 6 appeals
presented before ld. CIT(APPEAL) are restored to the files of ld.
CIT(APPEAL), to their original number, with the direction that same shall be
decided afresh, after providing only one opportunity of being heard, to the
appellant.
The assessee-appellant shall produce before Learned
CIT(APPEAL), receipts in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- for each
appeal, imposed today, and thereupon, Learned CIT(E) to commence
proceedings in the appeals, in accordance with law.
7 ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT Order pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. 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:- 26/06/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., Japur 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT/DCIT, Circle-06, Jaipur 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024) 5. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
