KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR V. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

ITA 69/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Krishan Kumar Yadav, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and unsubstantiated household expenses, which were added to the assessee's income as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance and non-attendance by the assessee, despite multiple opportunities given for representation. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the lack of adequate representation for the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34981 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT, Just Steels vs DCIT, Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh, Tukojirao Holkar vs CIT, CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya, Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 13; 69A

Judgement Text

"SIG stiieha slerpxor, wagY -yreraye, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Sh Wa. Maat, =a wees wd ff udls Hae Warn, dea wee G Baer BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM SMIHT attlet Gi. / ITA. No. 69/JPR/2025 freieot GY / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shri Krishan Kumar Yadav oc The ITO, Bhoopsera, Vs. Ward, Alwar -301402. Behror. Yar char Ui. / visa Fi. /PAN/GIR No.: ABMPY7414K smifeeit / Appellant | _—__—| weaeit Respondent fret GY sie W/ Assessee by : Shri $.L. Poddar, Adv. & Shri Harsh Poddar, Adv. Wored HY sie B/ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT QA Dl ARR/ Date of Hearing : 05/03/2025 UayY Too al ARR /Date of Pronouncement : 0/05/2025 arest / ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal, the denataan challenges the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A)] dated 09.02.2024. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2017-18. Ld. CIT(A) passed that the order because the assessee challenged the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 28.12.2019 passed by ITO, Ward, Behror [ for short AO] before him. 2 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 285 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “The appellant assessee is an individual. The appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) on 09.02.2024 was served online on ITBA Portal on 09.02.2024 which came into the knowledge of the assessee in January-2025 as the old counsel of the assessee has not informed about the passing of the order and he has also not filed any reply before the CIT(A). The assessee was not aware and has no knowledge for receiving of the hearing notices from CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee has no knowledge regarding issue of hearing notices as well as passing of ex-parte order on 09.02.2024 by the learned CIT(A). There'is delay of 285 days which is bonafide and non- intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. The Hon'ble |.T.A.T is humbly requested to consider the fact sympathetically and admit the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal-Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal-Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94-AO passed order allowing claim under that section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO-CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)-Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility for delay on Revenue-Tribunal dismissed two appeals filed by assessee holding that same as barred by limitation-Tribunal held that delay of 2984 days in filling appeal could not be condoned- Held, Supreme Court in case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. 3 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO Smt. Nirmala Devi and others held that legal advice tendered by a professional and litigant acting upon it one way or other could be sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay can be condoned-None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal- Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by fact that delay of 2984 days was incapable of condonation-In process Tribunal went about blaming assessee and professionals and equally Department-Tribunal's order did not meet requirement set out in law- Tribunal completely misdirected itself and had taken into account factors, tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand-Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay-Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that assessee was at fault, he intentionally and deliberately delayed matter and had no bona fide or reasonable explanation for delay in filing proceedings-High Court condoned delay of 2984 days in filing appeals-Assessee's Appeals allowed. (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that \"condonation of delay reasonable cause-delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal\". Copy of order is enclosed. _ (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. The Appellant, a local authority, acquired land belonging to one of the Respondents for a development scheme in 1988. As the Appellant did not pay the compensation amount despite notice, the property was auctioned and 4 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidder in 1992. The bidder deposited the sale proceeds. The Appellant then \"woke up from its slumber and filed objections before the Single Judge for setting aside the auction sale. Even in these proceedings, the Appellant did not appear and the same were dismissed for non-appearance. The sale deed was executed in favour of the highest bidder. The Appellant then filed an appeal before the District Judge which was barred by limitation. by a couple of months. This appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Onmistaken advice, the Appellant filed a second appeal to the High Court which was thereafter treated by the Court as a revision application. This was also dismissed. The Appellant then filed a review petition which was also dismissed. Against that the Appellant filed a SLP which was also delayed. The delay in filing the SLP was condoned and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the District Judge was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay. HELD allowing the appeal: (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no strait- jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter; (b) Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; (c) Unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned, in the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is 5 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties; In the circumstances it is submitted that it was because of the bonafide delay due to unseen circumstances. The appeal could not be filed in time. It is submitted that for something which happened due to inadvertence and beyond the control. Hence it is the prayer of the assessee as well as of the counsel that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal.” In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The Id. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay . of 285 days in preparation and filing of appeal on account of mis communication resulted in delay and that too of his earlier counsel. As is evident that there was miscommunication that is why there remain noncompliance and that is the reason for delay in filling the appeal. Considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to consider the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact g ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO the assessee is at risk. Ld. AR of the assessee also cited various judgment in his prayer for condonation of delay. 2.3. During the course of hearing, the Id. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay as the assessee remain noncompliant before the Id. CIT(A) and even the appeal was not filed in time and therefore, he objected to the prayer of the assessee. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by assessee for condonation of delay of 285 days are sufficient to —e the dele beeaues the same was the mistake at the part of the earlier counsel and that is why even the appeal was decided ex-parte and it has merit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay 285 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 4. 7. ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-on account of household expenses. 2. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee without giving the fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,19,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act 1961 on account of deposits in KCC account during demonetization period. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period as undisclosed income. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ah-hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of — various expenses debited in P&L A/c.” — The fact as culled out from the record is that the return declaring income of Rs 28,12,700- for A.Y. 2017-18 has been filed on 30.10.2017. The assessee has declared income from other source for the year under consideration. The case was selected under scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 25.09.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 30.10.2018. Online written reply received on 03.10.2018 along with power of attorney and copy of ITR. Further notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 28.02.2019 along with a query letter fixing the case for hearing on 8 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO 11.03.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 20.06.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 01.07.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 03.09.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 12.09.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.09.2019 along with query letter fixing the case for hearing on 10.10.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11.11.2019. In compliance to this notice the assessee filed online written reply received on 04.12.2019 furnished documents, details ‘and produced relevant documents which were examined on fet check basis and replies filed were placed on record. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs 3,19,000/- during the course of demonetization period in KCC account no 44560500000621 but the assessee has not shown agriculture income in ITR. Hence, it is clear that the assessee has not received amount against agriculture produced. But the assessee has received this amount in other persons and deposited in KCC account. In view above facts, the assessee has not proved the 9 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO source of that cash deposited till demonetization period. Ld. AO noted that assessee has received old currency note (SBN) by some other person and deposited in the bank account in the different dates The assessee has not produced cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings period of demonetization period old currency not is not legal tender. Hence Id. AO added Rs 3,19,000/- as undisclosed income. 4.2 TheLd. AO noted that the assessee has shown closing cash in hand of Rs. 16,34,026/- in books of account and total cash deposit of Rs. 96,29, 730/- during the demonetization period in the | bank account no 45560200007892 but the assessee has not filed supporting evidence regarding cash deposited in SBN notes and others legal currency. In absence of — supporting evidence/documents cash deposit of Rs 56,29,730/- was not justified. In view above facts, the assessee has not proved that cash deposit till demonetization period. It is crystal clear that assessee has received old currency note (SBN) by some other person and deposit in the bank account in the different dates. The assessee has not produced cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings period of demonetization period old 10 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO currency not is not legal tender. Hence, Id. AO considered a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- as undisclosed income. 4.3. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 43,132/- on account of staff welfare expenses, Rs. 11,307/- on account of conveyance expenses, Rs. 67,844/-on account of DG set repair and running expenses, Rs 78,000/- on account of misc. expenses and Rs. 13,056/-on account of delay payment charge expenses. Accordingly, the assessee was required to furnish details of these expenses during assessment proceedings. The assessee furnished details of these expenses but on verification during assessment proceedings, it is seen that the bills & vouchers of these expenses were not complete and most of the expenses have been booked on self- made vouchers. The assessee did not maintain any log register & call register for mobile. Besides the personal element on the expenses incurred on mobile expenses cannot be denied. The reply of the assessee was not fully acceptable in absence of complete bills & vouchers excess booking of these expenses cannot be ruled out. In view of these facts it will be fair and just to disallow a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of expenses and added to the total income of the assessee. 11 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO 4.4 During the year under consideration, the assessee has filed capital account but not shown any withdrawals regarding household expenses. Beside the personal element on the expenses incurred on household expenses cannot be denied. In this regard, the assessee has not filed any explanation regarding household expenses In view of these facts Id. AO considered it be fair and just to _ addition for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Before the Id. CIT(A) the assessee was given six opportunity of being heard on different dates the assessee did not comply to five notices and in case of one only adjournment was filed. Since the assessee did not support their ground Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under : “In Ground nos. 1 to 6 of appeal, the issues raised by the appellant is related to the additions made of Rs. 3,19,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on KCC A/c, Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses and disallowance made of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the expenses claimed respectively. 5. The material on record has been perused. It is evident from the records that the impugned appeal was filed online on 29/01/2020 and 12 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO the first notice u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued electronically on ITBA to the appellant on 31/12/2020 fixing hearing on 15/01/2021, however, till date no submission was filed. Several opportunities of hearing were given to the appellant as narrated below:- Date of hearing Pe | eae 15.01.2021 cI ili 05.01.2024 Remarks No compliance nor any adjournment has been sought for No compliance nor any adjournment has been soug No compliance nor any adjournment has been sought for 26.12.2023 05.01.2024 Adjournment has been sought for. (4. | 25.01.2024 | 02.02.2024 No compliance nor any adjournment has been sought for (ic hha 08.02.2024 No compliance nor any 5.1 It is evident from the above despite being provided with sufficient 26.10.2023 03.11.2023 adjournment has been soug opportunities to represent the case, the appellant refrained himself from attending the appellate proceedings. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the finding of assessing officer are incorrect. If the appellant fails to disprove or rebut with cogent evidence such facts and findings, no interference of appellate authority is required. In this case, the appellant did not choose to avail of the opportunities in the appellate proceedings which lead to the only conclusion that it had no evidence or explanation against the order of the assessing officer. The appellant should not be allowed to be enriched or benefited unjustly for act of his own wrongs i.e. non- compliance or non-attendance of hearing and: non submission of documents and evidences. 5.2 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has delivered a decision in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009) holding that a negligent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference, otherwise it would amount to giving premium to the appellant for his negligence. 13 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO When the appellant is non cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness of his claim. 5.3 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. Relevant extract of the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in the said case is extracted below: (ii) While not inclined to depart from the the view taken by the two High Courts, reference must be made to Sunderlaivs. Nandramdas AIR 1958 MP 260, where it was observed that though the act does not give any power of dismissal, it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal therefore, is an inherent power, which every tribunal possesses. This was approved in Dr. P. Nallia Thampy vs Shankar (1984(Supp) SCC63). In New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority, which has duty to decide a lies between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or judicial or Quasi-judicial Body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complaint who had instituted the proceedings That is not a function of the Court or for that matter of a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complaint, therefore, the court will be well within the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. 14 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO (iii) Accordingly, though the rule conferring power on the tribunal has been struck down, one cannot altogether lose sight of the rule that every court or tribunal has an inherent power to dismiss a proceeding for non prosecution when the petition/appellant before it does not wish to proceed the proceeding. In such a situation unless the statute clearly requires the court or tribunal to hear the appeal/proceeding and decide it on merits, It can dismiss the appeal/proceeding for non prosecution. The power must be exercised judiciously and after taking into consideration all the fact and circumstances of the case.\" 5.4 Hon'ble High Court of M.P in the case of Tukojirao Holkar vs CIT (223 ITR 480) had held that, \"If the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at hearing, the court is not bound to answer the reference.\" Similarly the lordship, in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477,478) has held that \"appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing in. Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT(ITA No.2006/Del/2011 dated 19.12.2011) has dismissed the appeal for non- attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.5 It is evident from the facts narrated in para-5 abov 5 above that though sufficient opportunities have been given to the appellant for pleading its case with supporting evidences or for furnishing written submission in support of his claim, the appellant and/or his AR has never responded and not even cared to file adjournment letters. Appellant's this attitude shows its scant regard towards statutory notices which itself makes the appeal liable for dismissals. The law, as per principle of well known dictum \"VIGILANTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT\", as observed by the Hon, ITAT Pune in the case of Abhay P. Kalbhor, Pune vs DCIT in ITA No. 1469/PN/02 for AYs 1989-90 to 1999-00 wherein the appeal filed by the 15 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO assessee was treated as unadmitted in view of non attendance of the proceedings by the appellant. The Hon. Tribunal also commented that it assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. In the circumstances narrated above, it is admitted fact that the appellant is least interested in contesting his case before the appellate authority. Therefore, | am of the considered view that the appeal needs to be dismissed as the appellant is not interested in the same. Since the appellant has chosen not to attend the hearing and does not want to pursue the appeal with any seriousness, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground only. 6. Without prejudice to the above and on merits, the appellant has no case. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the appellant had deposited Rs. 3,19,000/- in KCC account bearing Alc No 4456050000062 1during the demonetization period (09/11/2016 ‘TO 30/12/2016) and had not shown any agricultural income in his ITR filed. Therefore, the AO inferred that the appellant had received old currency notes from other person and deposited the same in the bank account in different dates. Therefore, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 3,19,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the AO found that the appellant had shown closing cash in hand of Rs. 16,34,026/- in the books of account and total cash deposit of Rs. 56,29,730/- in his bank account bearing A/c No 45560200007892 during the demonetization period (09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016). The AO observed that the appellant had not filed any supporting evidences regarding cash deposit Therefore, the AO inferred that the appellant had received old currency notes from other person and deposited the same in the bank account in different dates. The AO also observed that the appellant had not produced cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the AO treated a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. During the year under consideration, the appellant had debited a sum of Rs. 43,132/- on 16 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO account of staff welfare expenses, Rs. 11,307/- on account of conveyance expenses, Rs. 67,844/- on account of DG set repair and running expenses Rs. 78,000/- on account of misc. expenses and Rs. 13,056/- on account of delay payment charge expenses. The appellant had furnished details of these expenses during the assessment proceedings, however, it was observed that the bills & vouchers of these expenses were not complete and most of the expenses had been booked on self made vouchers. The AO further observed that the appellant had not maintained any log register and call register for mobile. In the absence of complete bills and vouchers, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the expenses claimed. During the year under consideration, the appellant had filed capital account but not shown any withdrawals regarding household expenses. The appellant had not filed any explanation regarding household expenses. Therefore, the AO made an addition of sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses. Since the appellant did not make any cogent explanation - regarding the issues and in view of this, the AO proceeded with making the alleged addition/disallowance. Even, during the appeal proceedings, the appellant could not produce any documentary evidences in support of his claim, neither did he make any response despite issuing various statutory notices as mentioned in para 5 above. As such, | find no reason to alter the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 3,19,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on KCC Alc, Rs. 5,00,000/-on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses and disallowance made of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the expenses claimed. In view of this, the action of the AO is sustained and the ground Nos 1 to 6 of the appeal raised by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. 7. In ground No 7, the appellant challenge penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings is consequential in nature, therefore this ground is dismissed. 17 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO 8. In Ground No 8, the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the appeal, however, the appellant has not exercised any of such options. Therefore, this ground is treated as dismissed ground of appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed” 6. As the assessee did not receive any favors from the appeal so filed before Id. CIT(A). The present appeal is filed against the said order of the Id. CIT(A) before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above. During the course of hearing, the Id. AR for the assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. The Id. AR of the assessee prayed to grant one chance provide the correct details in connection with the merits of his case in the interest of justice and the reasons for non compliance before the Id. CIT(A) was also the same as for the condonation of delay and therefore, in the interest of justice the assessee be given one opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Per contra, Id. DR objected to the prayer of the assessee and submitted that even the assessee did not represent case before the Id. CIT(A) and now they are praying for equity and justice. Even the assessee filed the present appeal with delay. 18 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted from the submission made by the Id. AR for the assessee that the assessee’s case is adjudicated as an ex-parte by the Id. CIT(A) and the reasons advanced was the case of the assessee was handled by the counsel who did not informed the assessee and therefore, he could present his case before the Id. CIT(A). Therefore, the bench is 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 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering that peculiar aspect of the matter we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the Id. CIT(A) who will consider the factual aspect of the matter as raised by the assessee after due verification of the facts and charge the correct income in hands of the assessee after affording due opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the Id. CIT(A). 9. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Id. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits 19 ITA No. 69/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav vs.ITO of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Id. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes. oy Order pronounced in the open Court on ©1/03/2025. ( Slo Va. Perera ) ( Uekeroresn orang ) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) aie weet / Judcial Member cal wera / Accountant Member Way / Jaipur festa / Dated:- O} 03/2025 *Santosh areet ot ufefet sift / Copy of the order forwarded to: artreneif / The Appellant- Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav, Alwar. yeaei/ The Respondent- ITO, Ward, Behror. IGT aryet / CIT eterar sryat/ CIT(A) foarte oferty, arerepe orftete arf, wage /DR, YTAT, Jaipur. ms wget / Guard File {ITA No. 69/JPR/2025} se / By order ee eS wep uvciler/Asst. Registrar "