B S CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI,SEWAR DISTRICT BHARATPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), ALWAR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"SMC" JAIPUR

श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं डा० मीठा लाल मीना, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 764/JP/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11

निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by: None

राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/01/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

<u>आदेश / ORDER</u>

PER: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 17-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

1.The Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred, by not providing a proper/sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Assessee could not attend and complied with the proceedings, due to his illness and ultimately death, assessee himself Sh. Pramod Kumar, who was secretary and responsible executive of the assessee society was expired on 7/11/2020. Later on the president of the society Sh. Kishan Singh, who is father-in-law of Sh. Pramod Kumar, could not

B.S. CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI, BHARATPUR VS ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR pursue the matters, properly being he had also been in mental pressure/stress due to death his son-in-law, Sh. Pramod Kumar in his young age of 37 years only. Now the Father- in-law of deceased, who is President of this assessee society, will handle all the affairs of these institution, in place of his son-in-law. So proper response and compliance could not be managed in these typical circumstances by the assessee institution, so assessee prays for excuse and to provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee, now he has got prepared,

hearing of the case.

The assessee institution was running a school/college for providing education to the students, and the subjected deposit of Rs 13,22,500/ in the bank a/ c of the assessee institution, was from fees receipts of the students of which all details are available, with the assessee; under the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case the Ld AO has grossly erred by not providing proper/sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard, no notice, as mentioned in the order and even assessment order also, were not served to the assessee, so under the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case the Ld AO has grossly erred by making addition of Rs 13,22,500.00 on account of cash deposit, u/s 69A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering facts and circumstances of the case, without any basis and going in to facts, assessee could not reply the notices, query, being no notice was served/received by the assessee, so in these circumstances the total receipts in the bank account can not be treated as undisclosed income.''

all submissions and responses and will submit all these, at the time of

- 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case of the assessee was called out for hearing. The Bench felt it appropriate to decide the appeal of the assessee ex-parte based on the materials available on record. - 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

- B.S. CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI, BHARATPUR VS ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR - 2.3 The Bench has heard the ld. DR and perused the order of the ld CIT(A)

wherein it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-

- 3.4. I have perused the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and the assessment order. From the Assessment Order it is seen that the AO has reopened the case on the basis of the information available with the Department that the assessee has received a sum of Rs 13,22,500/ in the bank account maintained with the Axis Bank Ltd. The case was reopened after due approval of the competent authority. Notice u/s 148 dated 17.03.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee and the assesseee was required to furnish the return within 30 days. Further notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates but the assessee failed to avail itself of the opportunity. Therefore, the AO was left with no other option but to complete the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, thereby assessing the income at Rs 13,22,500/ u/s 167B of the Act. As per provision of sec. 167B of the Act, as the assessee failed to furnish the return of income, copy of its Audit Report, Income & Expenditure Account etc as called for. - 3.5 From the facts stated above it is clear that the AO has followed all the laid down procedures and rules before completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, the grounds of appeal do not hold any merit for adjudication and is liable to be dismissed. The appellant samiti has not produced any material to controvert the finding of AO in the appellate proceedings as well. On merit AO's order is just and reasonable. Sources of the deposits made in the bank account maintained by the appellant samiti were not explained during assessment proceeding despite repeated opportunities being provided by the AO. No explanation has been provided by the appellant during appeal proceeding as well. From the above conduct of the assessee, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. In the event, I have no reason to interfere with the findings of the AO. In such circumstance, I dismiss the grounds of the appellant. - 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.''

ITA NO. 764/JP/2023

B.S. CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI, BHARATPUR VS ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

The Bench further noted that the assessee neither submitted any documentary evidence or written submission in connection with his appeal before the AO or before the ld CIT(A) to counter the same which indicates that the assessee is lethargic and not serious to pursue its case before the lower authorities in spite of multiple opportunities by the lower authorities. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the ld.CIT(A)'s order to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing its case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld. CIT (A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee 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.

3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our 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.

ITA NO. 764/JP/2023

B.S. CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI, BHARATPUR VS ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31 /01/2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼ Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur

fnukda @Dated:- 31/01/2024

\*Mishra

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vx zsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

- 1. The Appellant- B.S. Chandra Sekhadic and Samaj Sewa Samiti, Bharatpur - 2. izR;Fkh Z@ The Respondent- The ITO ( Exemption ), Alwar - 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT - 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) - 5. foHkkxh; i zfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur - 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 764/JP/2023)

vkn's kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar

B S CHANDRA SEKHADIC AND SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI,SEWAR DISTRICT BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), ALWAR