LADIWAL JEWELS & SONS LLP,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 456/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, which appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, sustaining the assessment order dated 19.05.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 3,72,566 on account of unexplained loss. The appeal was initially delayed by 358 days, attributed to the departure of the firm's accountant who managed ITBA portal access and email communications. The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the affidavit provided by one of the partners, Shri Om Prakash Agarwal. Both parties presented arguments on the merits of the case, which involved non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance but also considering the need for a fair opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783650 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEDNRA SISODIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.456/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP 2035, Pitaliyo Ka Chok, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. AAHFL3422A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Rajednra Sisodia, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 03/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/11/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee, whose appeal has been dismissed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC vide order dated 03.01.2024, is before this Appellate Tribunal, as thereby assessment order dated 19.05.2021, relating to the assessment year 2018-19, has been sustained. 2. Vide impugned assessment order, an addition of Rs. 3,72,566/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loss. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. Firstly, the issue of condonation of Delay in filing of the appeal 4. It may be mentioned here that as per deficiency note by the Registry, the appeal came to be presented 358 days after prescribed period of limitation. Record reveals that at the time the appeal was presented on 24.03.2025, the assessee did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. Subsequently, along with paper book 28.07.2025, application supported by an affidavit of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal one of the partner of the appellant firm, came to be presented with prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 5. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it has been alleged that Shri Prateek Sharma, accountant of the firm, who alone had access to ITBA Portal and email ID registered with the Income Tax Department, left services of the firm in October, 2023, without informing about pending proceedings or status of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), as a result whereof notices issued could not be complied with. 6. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the factum of dismissal of the appeal by Learned CIT(A) came to the knowledge of the partner only in Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. the month of March, 2025, when a call was received from the office of ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur for payment of the outstanding demand. Ld. AR has further submitted that it was only then that the partner contacted the C.A. and the appeal came to be presented. Accordingly, Learned AR has urged for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 7. As noticed above, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is dated 03.01.2024. Present appeal came to be presented on 24.03.2025. The fact that Shri Prateek Sharma accountant of the firm left the job in October, 2023, has been testified by Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, partner of the applicant firm. He has also testified on oath that the work relating to the filing of appeals and its follow up was entrusted to Shri Prateek Sharma Accountant of the firm, and as such, only he knew as to how to access ITBA portal and email ID. The affidavit of the partner has gone unchallenged when there is nothing to the contrary from the side of the department. So, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 8. Arguments have been advanced by both sides on merits today itself. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. On Merits 9. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act accompanied by a questionnaire were served upon the assessee. 10. Case of the department is that even though the assessee had shown other income of Rs. 4,22,59,986/- being profit of MCX, the assessee firm had also shown sales of Rs. 1,77.80 Cr., whereas cost of goods sold was shown at Rs. 18.90 Cr. and as such put forth figure of loss. Conduct of the Assessee during assessment proceedings 11. It is pertinent to mention that when notice dated 10.03.2021 u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee remained non compliant. Reminder was issued on 19.03.2021, but, again the assessee remained non compliant. One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to submit details of income as per notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, by 31.03.2019, but the assessee neither attended proceedings nor complied with the notices. That is how, show cause notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, came to be issued, but, surprisingly the assessee again remained non complains. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. 12. In para 3.3, the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details/information like copy of purchase and sales bills, copy of VAT/GST return, copy of ledger account of M/s Shree Govind Trader from whom the assessee claimed to have made purchases, copy of return of income of M/s Shree Govind Trader for the assessment year 2018-19 along with balance sheet reflecting transactions, accompanied by confirmation letters, and PAN with relevant part of bank statement, reflecting said transactions, but, the assessee failed to submit all this information. 13. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer was of the view that an amount of Rs. 3,72,35,566/- generated out of trading activities was not substantiated by the assessee for want of proof, and as such, it was not genuine claim. As a result, the Assessing Officer held that the claim regarding loss was not substantiated. From the above discussion, it transpires that the assessee was non compliant in the assessment proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. Conduct of the appellant before Learned CIT(A) 14. Record reveals that in the appellate proceedings, assessee-appellant was non compliant. In para 4 of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), there is detail of notices issued u/s 250 of the Act by the office of Learned CIT(A), NFAC, during the period from 24.03.2022 to 17.11.2023. In same para Learned CIT(A) has specified that no response was received from the assessee-appellant to the four notices served upon it under section 250 of the Act, by ITBA/email. Accordingly, in para 5.1 Learned CIT(A) took into consideration the assessment proceedings, the conduct of the assessee and factum of absence of documentary evidence from the side of the appellant, and upheld the assessment order. 15. Faced with the allegation of non compliance by the assessee in the assessment proceedings, and in the appellate proceedings raised by Ld. DR, Ld. AR for the appellant has come up with the only prayer that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer so as to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee, so that Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. assessee is able to produce all the relevant documents for effective adjudication of the issues involved. 16. Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer, especially keeping in view the conduct of the assessee which remained non compliant in the assessment proceedings and also before Learned CIT(A). 17. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the assessee-appellant, as narrated above, which establishes that the assessee was non compliant in the assessment proceedings and also before the appellate proceedings, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after providing another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Of course, for the non compliance, the assessee deserves to be burdened with costs. We deem it fit to impose cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand) on the assessee- appellant. Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and receipt to be produced before the Assessing Officer before the commencement of proceedings on restoration of the matter there. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 456/JPR/2025 Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur. Result 18. As a result, this appeal is disposed off, for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment, in accordance with law, after providing another opportunity of being heard to the assessee. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03/11/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Ladiwal Jewels & Sons LLP, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 456/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "