JAI BAJRANG CONTRACTOR,NAGDA V. ITO-WARD 2(2), UJJAIN

ITA 544/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jai Bajrang Contractor, a partnership firm, which filed an appeal against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute originated from the assessment year 2014-15, where the assessee's return was initially scrutinized, leading to an addition to the declared income. Following a revision order, the AO made further additions, which the CIT(A) upheld due to the non-representation of the assessee in the first appeal. The assessee, represented by Shri Anil Jain, CA & AR, argued for a remand to the AO due to the lack of opportunity to present their case, which the ITAT found justified under the principles of natural justice and fair play.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470290 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEE; HOWEVER; SUBMITTEDTHATTHE; FORREVENUEDOESNOTHAVEANYOBJECTIONIFTHISCASEIS; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIANILJAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 4 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.544/Ind/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 Jai Bajrang Contractor, 33, Sagar Electricals, Birla Gram Market, Nagda बनाम/ Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAEFJ9413G Assessee by Shri Anil Jain, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Pune [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(2), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36. Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 Page 2 of 4 2. The background facts leading to this appeal before us are such that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed return of AY 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 34,590/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny and the AO passed assessment-order dated 26.12.2016 u/s 143(3) after making an addition of Rs. 12,417/- and thereby determining total income at Rs. 47,010/-. Thereafter, the PCIT, Ujjain passed revision-order dated 25.03.2019 u/s 263 whereby the assessment-order was set aside and the AO was directed to reframe assessment after examining certain issues. Pursuant to such direction, the AO reframed assessment vide order dated 30.11.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 after making two additions, one of Rs. 9,67,542/- and other of Rs. 2,65,143/-, to the returned income and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 12,67,275/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but the first-appeal has been decided against assessee for non-representation. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides and on perusal of orders of lower-authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order ex-parte to assessee due to non-representation by assessee on the hearings fixed and thereby dismissed the first-appeal of assessee while upholding AO’s order. Further, the AO has also passed ex-parte assessment- order by observing that the assessee did not make any submission to the notices issued by him. Ld. AR for assessee, however, submitted that the assessee is from a smaller place and did not get sufficient opportunities to Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 Page 3 of 4 make submissions before authorities and therefore one more opportunity should be given in the interest of justice. To justify remand of this matter to AO, Ld. AR also pointed out that in Para 6 of assessment-order, the AO has also made following observation qua one of the additions amounting to Rs. 9,57,542/-: “6. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of case records, it is found that the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs.66,52,531/- during the year under consideration. The assessee firm has claimed TDS of Rs.1,33,076/- but disclosed receipt of Rs.56,85,187/- only. Actual TDS in form no. 16A come to Rs.113722/- whereas the assessee has claimed Rs.133076/- i.e. TDS of Rs.19354/- has been claimed as excess but failed to offer receipts of Rs.9,67,542/- against such TDS. Therefore, an amount of Rs.9,67,642/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately on this issue.” [Undrlines supplied] Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not aware of underlined observations made by AO in above para of assessment-order and they appear to be wrong or baseless. Ld. AR therefore makes a limited prayer that the present case should be remanded back to AO for consideration afresh after hearing assessee. Ld. AR also agrees that the assessee is ready to make compliances on the dates of hearing as may be fixed by AO. 4. Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if this case is remanded to AO but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent its case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. 5. Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 Page 4 of 4 matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/01/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 27/01/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "