ABDUL RASHID KHAN,DHOLPUR V. ITO-1, BHARATPUR

ITA 1080/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Rashid Khan, the appellant, who challenged the order of the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, which dismissed his appeal against the assessment order for the year 2015-16. The assessment order, passed by the Assessing Officer, included a significant unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 55,17,000 and other income, leading to a total assessed income of Rs. 55,27,617. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices during both the assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering the assessee's health issues documented through medical records, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting another opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785039 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: GORAV AGARWAL; THROUGH VH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No.1080/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Abdul Rashid Khan Tekedar Mohalla, Gummat Kile Ke Pass Bari, Dholpur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. BLFPK2051L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by :Shri Gorav Agarwal, CA (through VH); jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :11/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 30.09.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC as thereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the assessment order dated 10.03.2023, relating to the assessment year 2015-16, has been dismissed, and the following final computation of tax income made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed.:- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. “5. Final computation of taxable income: Sl. No. Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per return of income filed Not filed 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) NA 3. Variation in respect of cash deposit Rs. 55,17,000/- 4. Variation in respect of income from other sources Rs. 10,617/- 5. Total income/loss determined as per the above proposal Rs. 55,27,617/- 6. Assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act at a total income of Rs. 55,27,617/- for A.Y. 2015-16. Charged interest u/s 234A, B & C as per law. issued demand notice, challan accordingly after giving credit of prepaid taxes. Issued show case notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c, 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. It may be mentioned here that as per deficiency note raised by the Registry, the appeal having been filed on 29.07.2025 came to be filed 241 days after prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Condonation of Delay-in filing the appeal 4. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the assessee- appellant has alleged that he was suffering ill health, and since he remained admitted at hospital while under treatment, the appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. 5. In support of the application, reliance has been placed on copy of medical record of the applicant i.e. from page 28 to 38 of the appeal file. From medical record, it transpires that the applicant, aged about 64 years, was under medical treatment at Medanta, Gurgaon with effect from 02.07.2024. Medical prescription of 30.08.2024 issued by Rukmani Birla Hospital, Jaipur; copy of MRI report dated 07.10.2024; copy of medical record dated 24.12.2024 issued by Dr. S.K. Jain, MP; copy of prescription dated 13.03.2025 issued by a doctor from PARAS Health; prescription dated 05.04.2025, issued by a doctor from Max Health Care; medical prescription dated 17.04.2025 issued by a doctor from ARTEMIS Hospitals, Gurgaon; Medical prescription dated 11.06.2025 issued by Dr. S.K. Jain, from Bhopal have also been filed. We have gone through the entire medical record. It reveals that the assessee was suffering from Neuro- disease and accordingly, undergoing medical treatment from 02.07.2024 to 11.06.2025. Nothing to the contrary has been submitted by the department. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. 6. Keeping in view the ground submitted by the applicant, supported by medical record, we find that there was sufficient cause in non filing of the appeal before this Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. Appeal is admitted. On merits Assessee-Appellant –a non compliant in assessment and appellate proceedings 7. As per assessment order dated 10.03.2023 the assessee was non responsive to the notices by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, issued on 14.10.2022, 30.12.2022, 18.01.2023, 25.01.2023 and 01.12.2023. This goes to show that the assessee remained non compliant as regards all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment proceedings. 8. Even in the appellate proceedings, the assessee-appellant remained non compliant. As per para 4.1 of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, the appellant did not reply to any of the five notices dated Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. 17.04.2023, 03.02.2024, 22.03.2024, 18.04.2024 and 05.08.2024 issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), NFAC. 9. Faced with above referred to aspect of non compliance before the Assessing Officer and before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be restored to the files of the Assessing Officer so as to provide another opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 10. As per assessment order, the information available with the department was that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 55,17,000/- with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur during the financial year 2014-15, relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, and also that he had not filed return of income for the said assessment years disclosing therein transactions regarding deposit of cash amount. That is how, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, came to be issued to the assessee, but, he failed to respond to the said notice. Consequently, order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed, and notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee. Since, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, the assessment order was passed on 10.03.2023. The appeal filed by the assessee on 07.04.2023 before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2024 observing that the assessee had failed to comply with the five notices issued to him in the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order was confirmed as regards unexplained cash deposit. 11. Ld. DR for the department has not opposed the only submission of Learned AR for restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer by way of another opportunity to the assessee of being heard there. Keeping in view non compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, and his failure to avail of various opportunities granted to him, in the first instance, we are not inclined to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, but taking into consideration the gravity of the issue involved, and also that with effect from 02.07.2024, the assessee, 64 years of age, had to undergo medical treatment due to Neuro disease, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide him another opportunity of being heard. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025 Abdul Rashi Khan, Dholpur. As regards failure on the part of, and non compliance by the assessee with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and receipt to be produced before the Assessing Officer, even before the commencement of proceedings on restoration of the matter there. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/11/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Abdul Rashid Khan, Dholpur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 1, Bharatpur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1080/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "