SEEMARATAN HASRAJANI, JAIPUR V. ITO WARD-1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 348/JPR/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Seema Ratan Hasrajani against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained additions made by the AO regarding unexplained investments and undisclosed receipts for the assessment year 2010-11. The AO had added Rs. 77,52,656 as unexplained investment in mutual fund units and Rs. 55,84,706 as undisclosed receipts under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions, noting the assessee's failure to provide any evidence or comply with notices. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, directed the AO to reassess the case, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be cooperative and not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112958 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 195

Judgement Text

1 vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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. 348/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2010-11 Smt. Seema Ratan Hasrajani 22-A, Radha Niwas, Shivaji Chowk Indrapuri Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -1(1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADZPH 4247 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 02/08/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23/08/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.77,52,656/- towards alleged unexplained investment to Mutual Fund Units as held and assessed by the AO. 2 ITA NO.348/JP/2023 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.55,84,706/- towards alleged undisclosed receipts u/s 159 of I.T. Act, 1961 as held and assessed by the AO. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the assessee vide his application dated 01-08-2023 prayed for adjournment in the case with following submissions. ‘’This case is fixed for hearing on the day 02-08-2023. The undersigned A/R was occupied in filing of time baring IT returns sand other professional assignments, therefore could not file the paper book and prepared the case. It is humbly prayed to adjourn hearing of the case for any other convenient day after 3-4 weeks.’’ 2.2 However, the ld. DR objected to such adjournment application. 2.3 The Bench taking into consideration the adjournment application of the assessee and the objection of the ld. DR for not granting adjournment in the case for 3-4 weeks does not find appropriate reasons from the side of the ld. AR of the assessee which appears to be a flimsy reason and thus adjournment application of the assessee is rejected. 3.1 Now we come to merit of the case wherein the AO made the additions of Rs.77,52,656/- and Rs.55,84,706/- by observing as under:- ‘’5. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with this office the assessee has made investment in purchase of mutual fund units amounting to Rs. 77,52,656/- during the F.Y. 2009- 10. However, no details/information has been filed by him till date. 3 ITA NO.348/JP/2023 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Since the assessee has failed to discharge her onus of proving the source of such investment, therefore, investment made in purchase of mutual fund units amounting to Rs. 77,52,656/- are remained unexplained. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no other alternative but to add a sum of Rs. 77,52,656/- into the total income of the assessee for tax purposes, being unexplained investment, as no justification for source of such investment was submitted by the assessee despite providing ample opportunities to her. 6. Apart from above, as per information available with this office, the assessee has received receipts of Rs. 55,84,706/- u/s 195 during the FY. 2009-10 and the assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant period. I have no other alternative but to add a sum of Rs. 55,84,706/- treated income of the assessee for the year under consideration.’’ It is also noted that the AO passed the ex-parte order as neither the assessee appeared before the AO on the date of hearing for arguing the case nor submitted any reply to counter the additions so made by the AO hereinabove. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- Decision 7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at page no 1. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. Even the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-compliance on the part of the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not interested 4 ITA NO.348/JP/2023 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 3.4 We heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The Bench found that the assessee was neither present before the lower authorities nor submitted any documentary evidence/ information to prove his side. It is also noted that sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the assesee by the ld. CIT(A) as mentioned at para 3 and page 2 of his order. The Bench thus observed that the assessee was really lethargic and unserious in pursuing her 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 opportunities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing her case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the 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 5 ITA NO.348/JP/2023 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR remain cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Thus the appeal of the assessee is 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 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. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court 23/08/2023. 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:- 23/08/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Seema Ratan Hasrajni, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(1), 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.348/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar