KANHIYA LAL CHOUDHARY,TODARAISINGH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX APPEALS, INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT FACE LESS

ITA 178/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issues in the appeal were the rejection of the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the disallowance of salary payments amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/-. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing without sufficient cause. The tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the AO and CIT(A), leading to assumptions of no objection to the disallowance claimed. The tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the need to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314153 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: K.L. MOOLCHANDANI; ITP
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Business expenditure; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 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;djvihyla-@ITA No. 178/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary Near Bus Stand, Todaraisingh Tonk Road, 304 001 cuke Vs. DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPC 0831 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITP jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR Thru’ VC lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06 /05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A) ]dated 31-10-2023,for the assessment year 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal; 2 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR ‘’1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(Appeals) has factually and legally erred in rejecting the request for condo-nation of the delay in filing the appeal within prescribed time without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. 1(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeals) has factually and legally erred in defining the term 'Sufficient Cause' by relying upon certain judicial citations which have no direct bearing on the facts of present case. 1(c) Again, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeals) has factually and legally erred in observing that it was not a case of non-receipt of the assessment order. In fact, because of dysfunction of the on- line Portal, it viewed 'Okb' only as per copy of the view obtained from the Site at the given point of time. Thus such findings of the Id. CIT (Appalls) were factually incorrect and deserve to be quashed summarily 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (Appeals) did not take up the second ground of the Appeal regarding disallowance of the salary payments of Rs. 1,44,000/- without assigning any reason. Thus the second ground of appeal remained un-addressed in the Appeal Order for no reason assigned. Thus the appeal order so passed without addressing the second ground is patently is factually and legally incorrect and lopsided and the same deserves to be quashed summarily on this ground alone. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on merits also, the Authorities Below have factually and legally erred in ignoring the vital points at issue regarding disallowance of salary payments of Rs.1,44,000/- viz. invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act which do not come into play in the present case as it is not a case of un-explained expenditure u's 69C of the Act, but it is a case of the genuineness of the correctness of the salary payments claimed as business expenses. Thus the Appeal Order without thrashing out the above facts and point is obviously bad in law and the same deseres to be quashed summarily. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as he has not explained the delay in filing the appeal before him and thus failed to 3 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR discharge the onus cast upon him. The relevant narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal reads as under:- ‘’5. Appellate decision:- 5.1 to 5.5 …… 5.6 The appellant has not explained the delay in filing of appeal and has therefore failed to discharge the onus cast upon it. Therefore, after the careful consideration of the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, judicial principles laid down by the above quoted judgements, it is clear that appellant has failed to furnish sufficient and reasonable cause explaining the delay, hence the instant appeal filed after the expiry of due date is barred by limitation and not admitted.’’ 2.2 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noted that there is delay of 407 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before ITAT for which the assessee has filed an application dated 20th Feb. 2025 for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing the second Appeal in the case of Sh. Kanhiyalal Choudhary, Todaraisingh, Tonk-PAN:ABAPC0831G-A.YR.2018- 19-Appeal No.ITA/178/JPR/2025- ‘’With reference to the above appeal proceedings, the Appellant hereby begs to submit that the Appeal Order in this case was passed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) vide order u/s 250 of the Act on 31.10.2023. Un-fortunately due of dysfunction of the Portal, the said Appeal Order did neither reach the Appellant nor it was viewed on the Site. Accordingly, a Grievance Petition was filed with the Department as per copy of the Petition submitted herewith but of no avail. It was after the receipt of the show cause notice in respect of the Penalty Proceedings for this year, when the Department was again requested to send the copy of the Appeal Order, the Appellant could receive the Appeal Order only on 30.12.2024 as evident from the forwarding letter vide which this Order was sent on 30.12.2024. On receipt of the order on 30.12.2024, the present Appeal has been filed on 10.2.2025 i.e. within prescribed time limit of 60 days. However, it has been filed late by 427 days (Approximately) from the date of 31.10.2023 when the order u/s 250 was passed by the Id. CIT (Appeals). The Appellant has submitted an Affidavit 4 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR on oath to this effect confirming therein the above facts and contentions. Copy of the Affidavit is submitted herewith for your kind perusal and record. 2. Having considered the above facts, your honors may appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by honest and reasonable cause from filing the present, your honous are therefore, requested to kindly condone the delay and admit the same in the interest of equity and natural justice. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the cause of the late filing of the appeal. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and stated the reasons advanced for delay are not sufficient for huge delay. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO who did not respond to the notices sent by the AO and in such a situation the AO presumed that the assessee had no objection for the disallowance of Rs.1,44,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being inordinate delay of 201 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has failed to furnish sufficient cause and reasonable cause in explaining the delay. The Bench also noted that there is further delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. However, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the following averment vide his affidavit. 5 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT., JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR IN THE CASE KANHIYALAL CHOUDHARY, TOTARAISINGH TONK-PAN: ABAPC0831G-A.YR 2018-19-REG. CONDO-NATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL I, Kanhiyalal Choudhary S/o late Sh. Banna Lal Choudhary, Aged 56 esident of Todaraisingh, Tonk, solemnly affirm today i.e.on 06-02-2025 at aipur as under: 1. That I have been regularly assessed to Income Tax for last many years. 2. That for the Asstt. Yr. 2018-19, an Appeal Order was passed u/s 250 of the Act on 31.10.2023 vide ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057542040(1) which was forwarded through online Portal. 3. That unfortunately due to dysfunction of the Portal, the said appeal order did neither reach me nor could be viewed on the Site. 4. That a grievance was filed to this effect on 21.11.2023 but of no avail. Copy of the Grievance Petition to this effect is enclosed for ready reference. 5 That on 18.11.2024, we did receive the Penalty Notice on account of the Assessment/Appeal Proceedings for this Asstt. Year. 6. That in response to such penalty notice, again we had informed the Department about the non-receipt of the Appeal Order dated 31.10.2023. Accordingly, the Department had forwarded the copy of the Appeal Order dated 31.10.2023 as per enclosed forwarding letter received by us on 30.12.2024. Thus the impugned Appeal Order has been received by us only on 30.12.2024. 7. That in the circumstances, I was prevented by bona-fide and honest reasons from filing the second appeal within prescribed time limit from the actual date of the Appeal Order passed i.e. on 30.12.2023. 8. That having considered the above facts and circumstances, I request the honorable Bench to kindly condone the delay in filing the second appeal and admit same being filed now vide enclosed Form No. 36. 9. That I hereby declare on oath that I have gone through the above facts and contents vide para 1 to 9 above carefully and consciously which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so Almighty God shall help me. Sd/- Deponent ‘’ 6 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR The Bench has taken into consideration the entire episode of the case as the assessee was lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case.It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.3,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fundbefore the start of the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A). However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing the 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. 7 ITA NO. 178/JPR/ 2025 SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR 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 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 06 /05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/05/2025 *Mishra, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Kanhaiya Lal Choudhry, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 178/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "