HARKARAN SINGH BINDRA,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1 (3), JAIPUR

ITA 1086/JPR/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Harkaran Singh Bindra against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which was dated 26.06.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23. The primary grievances included the CIT(A)'s decision to pass an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity for the assessee to present his case, and the confirmation of additions to the assessee's income amounting to Rs. 17,74,308. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jaipur, after hearing the arguments, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring that the assessee is provided a fair opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779326 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Peak credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69C

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1086/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Harkaran Singh Bindra 301-302, Plot No. 6-GA-8A, Triveni Apartment Uday Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302 004 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -1 (1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BFIPB 1942 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 26.06.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (\"NFAC\") has erred in passing the order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR quashing the order being against the principles of natural justice as passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to make submissions. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 2,44,276 to the income of the assessee. The action of Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 2,44,276. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 15,30,032 to the income of the assessee, under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The action of Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 15,30,032 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act and also no plausible explanation or corroborative evidences were submitted to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of appeal raised before him and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR ‘’3.3 I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the assessment order I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the appellant in the absence of any plausible explanation and documentary evidences in support of the claims made. The appellant has not responded to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act. However, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, I have carefully considered the grounds raised by the appellant despite his non-responsive behaviour. The assessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi under section 143(3) r.ws. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands as a well-reasoned and comprehensive document, thoroughly discussing the issues involved and the reasons behind rejecting the appellant's contentions. In the circumstances, the action of the AO is upheld and the amount of addition of Rs. 17,74,308/- are confirmed. 3.4. In view of the above, the appeal is treated as dismissed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents before the ld. CIT(A) as to addition of Rs.17,74,308/- sustained by him so that the issue in question could be settled. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual had e-filed his income tax return on 21-03-2013 in ITR-3 showing total income Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR at Rs.4,73,300/- and tax paid of Rs.1,000/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. The return of the assessee was selected through CASS by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 02- 06-2023 which was served on the assessee electronically. The assessee was provided multiple opportunities by the AO (Assessment Unit-Income Tax Department) but the assessee had not provided the consolidated statement of profit & loss or ledger account whereby the actual gain can be deduced. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessee had left it to the Assessing Officer to make calculation from the statement filed of 50 pages in connection with crypto currency. From the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO made two additions i.e. (1)Rs.15,30,032/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and Rs.2,44,276/- as Estimation of Income from Crypto trading. The narration so made by the AO at page 12 and 13 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- ‘’From the above, it can be seen that there is no PAN or mentioned in the said entity nor has the same been confirmed by the purported loan. Accordingly the statement cannot be considered to establish the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the person who is stated to have advanced loan to the assessee which is stated to be one of the source of the business. Moreover at this late juncture wherein the assesses has uploaded such new incomplete documents independent verifications also cannot be made especially in the absence of PAN and even address. During the course of Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR VC the assessee was informed about the same and was required to provide all supporting to substantiate the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the person considering the extent of loan stated to be given over the year. However the assessee had in response merely filed a copy of the PAN card of the said person and other persons from whom the assesse is stated to have obtained loan for trading in the crypto-currency. it was further contented that the said amounts have been repaid in the subsequent year and that since the assessee does not maintain any books the amounts cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. However the said documents in itself does not confirm the source of the amounts utilized for trading in crypto currency. It is seen that the peak credit shown from the said person Shri Adity Singh Bindra is Rs. 13,84,235/- for the year. The said amount is considered as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Further in addition to the same the assessee has shown loans/credit from other persons of Rs. 1,45,797-. The same is also added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The total addition on such account is Rs.15,30,032/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated separately for the same. 4. Conclusion drawn:- Therefore, in the absence of verifiable details and supporting and since the books of the assesse has not been audited, 0.25% of the receipts of Rs.9,77,10,452/- i.e. Rs.2,44,276/- is added to the income for the yeaer. Besides it is seen that the assessee has not explained satisfactorily the source of the money stated to be received as loan from Shri Adity Kumar Bindra wherein peak credit is Rs.13,04,235/- and from others of Rs.1,45,797 In view of the same the said amounts of Rs.15,30,032/-is added as unexplained money u/s 63A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Due to the lapses on the part of the assessee where there are non-compliances in total and addition being made in line with CASS reasons.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assessee had not advanced any plausible explanation and documentary evidences in support of the claims made and thus in the circumstances of the case, he upheld the action of the AO, confirming addition of Rs.17,34,308/- (i.e. Rs.15,30,302/- u/s 69A Plus Rs.2,44,276/- as Estimation of Income from Crypto Trading). From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter 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. 2.5 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 Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 998/JPR/2025 SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 14 /10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 14 / 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Harkaran Singh Bindra, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -1(3), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1086/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "