RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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