Sh. Badri Narayan Meena, RIICO Industrial Area, Raod No.4, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur V. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

ITA 10/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Badri Narayan Meena, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite the assessee's request for adjournment. The CIT(A) had upheld the additions made by the AO regarding undisclosed investments and unexplained deposits, citing the assessee's failure to respond or provide any substantiating documents. The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to restore the matter back to the AO, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and due process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132429 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhlaanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 10/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2012-13 Shri Badri Narayan Meena RIICO Industrial Area, Road No. 4 Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 2(4) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGJPM 3336 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Natonal Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘’for short NFAC’’), Delhi dated 13-12-2022 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following ground of appeal. ‘’The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee and ignoring that in response to notice dated 15-11-2022 the assessee sought adjournment upto 15-12-2022.’’ 2 ITA NO. 10/JP/2023 SHRI BADRI NARAYAN MEENA VS ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. The facts of the case as note above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. No details, documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the order. The notices have been duly served upon the appellant via e- mail. Regrettably no response whatsoever was forthcoming on the appointed date. Thus nothing has been placed on record to substantiate as to why the additions of Rs.83,61,934/- on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property, of Rs.66,03,248/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank paid and of Rs.19,16,083/- on account of unaccounted investment into purchase of motor vehicles made by the AO to the appellant’s income should not be sustained. 6. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide case on the basis of material on record. Bare perusal of the facts shows that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. The appellant has further jeopardized its case by not responding despite several opportunities that were provided. The appellant has failed to substantiate the unexplained investment in immovable property and motor vehicles. The appellant has also failed to submit the sources of credit in his bank account. In the absence of any evidences, whether documentary or otherwise, I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making additions of Rs.83,61,934/- on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property, of Rs.66,03,248/- on account of unexplained deposits in bank account and of Rs.19,16,083/- on account of unaccounted investment into purchase of motor vehicles. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds of appeal are ,therefore, dismissed. 3 ITA NO. 10/JP/2023 SHRI BADRI NARAYAN MEENA VS ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR 7. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 148 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14-12-2019 by the AO is upheld..’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assesseee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/ submissions before the AO in the interest of equity and justice. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic and unserious to pursue his case and thus the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench observed that the assessee was really lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case in spite of providing various opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO as mentioned in their orders. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several authorities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing his case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.5,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the 4 ITA NO. 10/JP/2023 SHRI BADRI NARAYAN MEENA VS ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR same shall be submitted to the AO for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO 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 assessment proceedings before the AO. 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 A.O. shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by A.O. independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03/05/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Badri Narayan Meena, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(4), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 10/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar