RAJASTHAN GRAMEEN AAJEEVIKA VIKAS PARISAD,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT CIR -6, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 535/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 January 2024AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. The primary reason for this decision was that while the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide explanations, it was not evident from the CIT(A)'s orders whether proper notices were served to the assessee for the hearings. Additionally, no documentary evidence was provided by the assessee to counter the CIT(A)'s orders. Considering that the assessee is an organization promoted by the Government of Rajasthan for rural poverty alleviation, the Bench felt it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments and was expected to cooperate. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision to restore the matter does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikash Parisad, filed three appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, for the assessment year 2018-19. These appeals challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeals pertained to additions made under Section 144, penalty under Section 270A, and penalty under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing. The revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-6, Jaipur, relied on the CIT(A)'s orders. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance and failure to provide explanations, despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of capital of Rs. 3,48,08,24,518/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and disallowing project cost of Rs. 3,38,72,22,197/-, and if the reasons assigned were contrary to facts and law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 68). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,03,19,58,318/- under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and if the reasons assigned were contrary to facts and law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 270A). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,88,49,471/- under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and if the reasons assigned were contrary to facts and law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 271AAC). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee did not appear before the ITAT and therefore, no arguments were recorded for the assessee. The grounds of appeal state that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions and penalties were wrong and contrary to facts, circumstances, and provisions of the Act. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the learned DR, relied upon the orders of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 270A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. 8. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Hearing: 01/11/2023

ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are three appeals filed by the assessee against three different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as “NFAC”] all dated 18.07.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 respectively in the matter of Section 144, 270A and 271AAC of the Act raising following grounds of appeal in respective appeals..

1.

2 551 & 538/JPR/2023 Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parisad “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LD CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition the capital Rs. 3,48,08,24,518/- u/s 68 of the Act and in the reasons assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer in disallowing project cost Rs. 3,38,72,22,197/- and the reasons assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder.

ITA No. 538/JPR/2023 – A.Y. 2018-19 “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levying penalty of Rs. 2,03,19,58,318/- u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was in respect of addition made and the reason assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder.’’ – A.Y. 2018-19 “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 20,88,49,471/- u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was in respect of addition made and the reason assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder.

3 551 & 538/JPR/2023 Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parisad 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case of the assessee was called out for hearing. It is observed from the ld. CIT(A) order that he provided number of opportunities to the assesee but the assessee did not appear before by the ld. CIT(A). Hence , the Bench feels to dispose off these appeals ex-parte based on the materials available on record. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR in the above mentioned appeals relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 2.3 The Bench heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record.. The Bench noted in these appeals that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the above mentioned appeals for the reasons that the assessee had not offered any explanation to justify the claim in spite of providing various opportunities. The relevant observation of the ld. CIT(A) in the respective appeals are mentioned as under:- ITA No. 535/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2018-19 “4. Decision:

In this case, the appellant was given opportunities to represent the case on 17.04.2023, 23.05.2023 and 04.07.2023. In response, till date, nothing has been heard from the appellant. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant to justify its claims. Thus, it appears that the appellant is not

5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” – A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 271A “4. Decision:

In this case, the appellant was given opportunities to represent the case on 17.04.2023, 23.05.2023 and 04.07.2023. In response, till date, nothing has been heard from the appellant. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant to justify its claims. Thus, it appears that the appellant is not interested in proceedings with the appeal filed. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed in-limine.

5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” – A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 271AA “4. Decision:

In this case, the appellant was given opportunities to represent the case on 17.04.2023, 23.05.2023 and 04.07.2023. In response, till date, nothing has been heard from the appellant. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant to justify its claims. Thus, it appears that the appellant is not interested in proceedings with the appeal filed. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed in-limine.

5.

As a result, the appeal is dismissed.”

5 551 & 538/JPR/2023 Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parisad The Bench also noted that the ld CIT(A) has given stereo decision in the above mentioned appeals but it does not emerge from the orders of the ld. CIT(A) that service of notices have been made to the assessee to attend the hearing in the above mentioned appeals. It is also noteworthy to mention that no documentary evidences have been supplied by the ld. AR of the assessee to counter the orders of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, in this view of the matter, the Bench feels that the assessee institution is an organization promoted by Govt. of Rajasthan for Rural Poverty Alleviation, Jaipur, should be given one more chance to submit the documentary evidences and written submission in connection with the above appeals before the ld. CIT(A) who will decide them 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 appeals of the assessee are 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.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/01/2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →