JUZAR MOHAMMED HUSAIN BANKODAWALA,JAIPUR V. CIRCLE (INTL TAX) , JAIPUR

ITA 575/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, the appellant, who challenged the order dated 03.03.2025 by the Learned CIT(A), Delhi-42, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed due to non-compliance and delay in filing. The assessment order dated 26.03.2022 by DCIT, National Faceless Assessment -Central, under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, was upheld, which included an addition of Rs. 44,58,209 to the appellant's income for the assessment year 2017-18, citing unsubstantiated source of investment in immovable property. The tribunal noted the absence of deficiency notes in the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for rectification opportunities to the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711600 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala Najampura Sagwara, Dungarpur, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Circle (Intl Tax) Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.:ASOPB3950C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby :None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :17/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Appellant-assessee has challenged order dated 03.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), Delhi-42, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even on the previous date, there was non appearance on behalf of the appellant, and the appeal was adjourned in view of request received from Ld. AR for the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has advanced arguments. Learned DR has submitted that the appellant remained non-compliant even before Learned CIT(A), despite sufficient opportunity, and that there were deficiencies in the appeal, which the appellant did not remove, and furthermore, the appellant did not move any application seeking condonation of delay of about 5 months in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), and as such, CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non compliance by the appellant in the appeal proceedings, and also on account of delay in filing of the appeal. 3. As a result of dismissal of the appeal, order dated 26.03.2022, passed by DCIT, National Faceless Assessment -Central- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act has been upheld. 4. Vide assessment order dated 28.03.2022, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 69 of the Act of the value of Rs. 44,58,209/- and accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 45,87,450/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur 5. Said assessment came to be made on the ground that the assessee had failed to substantiate source of investment of Rs. 44,58,209/-, the sale consideration said to have been paid by him, on purchase of certain immovable property. 6. It may be mentioned here that the assessment proceedings were commenced, when the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income for the said assessment year had escaped assessment. That is how, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. 7. As is available from para 3 of the assessment order, the assessee filed his ITR, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14.04.2021, but same was not verified in the e-filing portal. 8. Four notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 11.11.2021, 17.12.2021, 02.02.2022 and 07.03.2022, but, the assessee remained non compliant. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order, as noticed above. 9. When the appeal filed by the assessee came up before Learned CIT(A), while challenging the above said assessment order, three notices dated 16.04.2024, 15.10.2024 and 21.02.2025 came to be issued to the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur appellant, but, as finds mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order, the assessee remained non compliant even in the appellate proceedings. 10. Learned CIT(A) also observed in para 5 of the impugned order that even though in column No. 11, the assessee had mentioned that statement of facts were attached there with, actually there was no such attachment. Even no copy of any passport of the assessee was found attached, as claimed in Form No. 35. Learned CIT(A) also found that the appeal was filed almost 5 months after the prescribed period of limitation. 11. However, on going through the impugned order, we find that there is no mention therein, as to whether the office of Learned CIT(A) raised any deficiency note(s) as regards the deficiencies referred to above. Purpose of raising deficiency notes is to provide an opportunity to the party at fault to make the deficiency good. Since there is no mention in the impugned order that any opportunity was granted to the assessee-appellant to make the abovesaid deficiencies good, we deem it a fit case to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the files of Learned CIT(A) so as to provide to the appellant- assessee an opportunity to do the needful, so as to remove the deficiencies notes or furnish its response in respect thereof. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur Result 12. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of the Learned CIT(A)so as to provide to the appellant-assessee an opportunity to do needful so as to remove deficiencies note(s)referred to above or to furnish justification for the same, in accordance with law. However, keeping in view that the appellant remained non-compliant to the three notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) for the purpose of hearing, the assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Fund” . Receipt in proof of deposit of costs to be submitted before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUn dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/07/2025 *Santosh Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 575/JPR/2025 Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawala, Jaipur vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Juzar Mohammed Husain Bankodawal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur. . 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 575/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "