GOVIND JEE,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1040/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Govind Jee, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(1), Jaipur, which added Rs. 12,76,500 to his income as unexplained cash deposit under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, which was not adequately explained by the appellant. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the request for a physical hearing (not permitted under the Faceless Appeal Scheme), decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the appellant another chance to comply and present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774849 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. POONIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1040/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Shri Govind Jee C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 1(1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ATGPG 4965 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia,CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25 /08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 01/ 09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ]dated 11-06-2025, for the assessment year 2017- 18 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 2. That Ld. CIT dismissed the appeal without considering the submission along with documentary evidences submitted by appellant which is wrong, illegal and bad in Law. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs. 12,76,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. 2.1 Apropos of grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation as there was delay of approx. 09 months in filing the appeal before him for which no separate explanation, affidavit or petition was filed either in writing or through the portal, setting out the reasons for delay and seeking condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- ‘’4. The issue of delay in filing appeal and decision thereon: (i) It is noted from the records that the appeal has been filed with a delay of approximately 9 months. As per Column No. 15 of Form 35 submitted online, the appellant has stated. \"Grounds for condonation of delay will be submitted at the time of hearing.\" (ii) However, despite the passage of considerable time since the filing of the appeal, no separate explanation, affidavit, or petition has been submitted either in writing or through the portal, setting out the reasons for the delay, nor has any request for the condonation of delay has been made for this purpose, in the written submissions filed during the course of proceedings. (iii) It is a well-settled principle of law that delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown, and the burden lies on the appellant to explain the circumstances that prevented the timely filing of the appeal. The mere statement that reasons would be furnished later cannot substitute for a proper application seeking condonation or at least articulating the reasons behind delay. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR (iv) While it is true that the appellant has filed detailed submissions on merits and, including a request for admission of additional evidence, these cannot be entertained unless the appeal is held to be validly instituted. Since the delay has not been explained at all, and there is no material on record to enable judicial satisfaction as to the sufficiency of cause, I find no justification to condone the sald delay. (v) The appellant has, vide one of the written submissions, requested for a physical hearing in the matter. However, this appeal has been filed under the framework of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020, which does not envisage or permit physical appearance or in-person hearing at any stage of the proceedings. The only mode of hearing, where warranted, is through video conferencing or video telephony. subject to the discretion of the appellate authority. In the present case, it is further observed that the appeal suffers from a delay of approximately 8 months, for which no explanation, despite specific indication in Form 35. In view of the absence of any reasoned justification, the appeal is being dismissed as barred by limitation, without being admitted for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the request for physical hearing stands rejected, both on the ground of statutory inapplicability under the Faceless Appeal Scheme and on account of procedural non-maintainability, as the appeal itself is not being entertained. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be barred by limitation and is dismissed in limine on that ground, without going into the merits of the case.’’ 2.2 In the course of hearing, ld. AR invited the attention of the Bench that he had received a letter dated 08-02-22021 from the office of ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi that his application has been verified and it is found to be in order (PB-1). The relevant para of ld. CIT(A)’s order is reproduced as under:- ‘’Your appeal application has been verified and is found to be in order. Therefore, the same is admitted. Therefore, the same is admitted. The appeal No. allocated to your case is NFAC/2016- 17/10003324.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR He further submitted that he was not provided adequate opportunity to substantiate the reason for late filing of the appeal otherwise he would have submitted the same before him. Hence, in the interest of equity and justice, the delay so made in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee simultaneously submitted that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and ld. CIT(A) and thus his case may be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity to contest the case before him. 2.3 On the other hand, ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the ld.AR. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the AO vide his assessment order dated 11-12- 2019 passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act by holding therein that in spite of providing ample opportunities to the assessee through notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee failed to furnish any details relating to business activities undertaken by the assessee company, nature of income earned, details of bank account, details of cash deposits made in the bank account, source of cash deposits , details of cash deposits made during demonetization period and pre-post demonetization period alongwith the source thereof. Thus, he made an addition of Rs.12,76,500/- to the income Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR of the assessee deeming it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and total income assessed was taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act, at the rate of 60%. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal before him. 2.4.1 The Bench has taken into consideration the entire gamut of the case that the assessee remained non-compliant before AO despite several opportunities and notices. Ld. AR has requested that appellant be provided one more opportunity to contest the case. Assessee has not furnished any explanation for non-compliance of notices. The Bench also feels that it is the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authority as and when he was called for. 2.4.2 Keeping in view the issue involved and that various opportunities were provided to the assessee but he did not avail of same, we deem it to be a fit case where assessee should be afforded another opportunity even though subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- which will be deposited by the appellant in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh in accordance with law by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/09 /2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01 /09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Govind Jee, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1040/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 1040/JPR/2025 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Printed from counselvise.com "