MADAN LAL BAPNA,GURGAON V. ITO WARD 3(5), JAIPUR

ITA 731/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Vinod Kumar Bapna, the legal representative of the deceased assessee Madan Lal Bapna, against orders from the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeals challenged the dismissal of their earlier appeals due to alleged delays and the sustenance of a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal found that the appellant was not aware of the notices and orders during the lifetime of Madan Lal Bapna, leading to the decision to remand the quantum proceedings and set aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712219 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN; GOURAV SAGTANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c)

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 jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madan lal Bapna Represented by L/h of Vinod Bapna H-40, Second floor Residency Green Opposite Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-46, Gurgaon, Haryana. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABVPB3530C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh Prateek Jain, C.A. & Sh. Gourav Sagtani, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member This common order is to dispose of both the above captioned appeals, as the same arise out of the same facts, and have been simultaneously argued. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon The two appeals came to be filed, after verification and signing of Forms- 36 by Vinod Kumar Bapna, who claims to be legal representative of assessee Madan Lal Bapna. 2. ITA No. 730/JPR/2025.- Present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging order dated 17.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2011-12, whereby appeal filed by the assessee on 10.12.2019, challenging assessment order dated 12.11.2018, passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act., came to be dismissed, while observing that the appellant had failed to justify the delay in filing thereof. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. Ld. AR for the appellant, legal representative of Madan Lal Bapna, assessee has submitted that the appellant was not aware of the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, and that to the best on his acknowledge, the legal representative was not aware of service of any such notice on his father during his life time. Ld. AR for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant- legal representative came to know of the assessment order, for the first Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon time, during assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 when it was brought to his notice that there was a demand outstanding. Ld. AR has further submitted that it was thereupon that appellant applied for certified copy of the assessment order and other papers. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal deserved to be condoned, and urged that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. 5. ITA No. 731/JPR/2025- By way of present appeal, the appellant- legal representative of the assessee Madan Lal Bapna has challenged order dated 17.03.2025, whereby Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by his father, thereby sustaining the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by observing that the said appeal was also barred by limitation. 6. Regarding this second mentioned appeal, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth the very submissions already noticed above and urged that the impugned orders may be set aside. Discussion 7. As noticed above, assessment order is dated 12.11.2018, and the penalty order is dated 31.05.2019. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon 8. Record reveals that there was non compliance by the assessee by not participating in the quantum proceedings and the proceedings pertaining to penalty. Thereafter, the assessee presented two separate appeals before Learned CIT(A) on 10.12.2019. Since those appeals were reportedly filed beyond prescribed period of limitation, deficiency note/letter was issued by the said office to the appellant. It is available from the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) that on 13.03.2025 the letter was submitted accompanied by an affidavit pleading therein that the appellant had shifted from Jaipur to Gurgaon, and as such no notice regarding ongoing proceedings was served upon him. 9. From the assessment order, it does not transpire if the factum of death of the assessee was brought to the notice of the office of Learned CIT(A). Even the impugned orders have been issued in the name of the assessee, and not in the name of any legal representative . As per affidavit dated 26.07.2025 submitted by the appellant legal of the assessee is further left this world on 06.05.2021. This goes to so that after the two appeals were filed by the appellant before Learned CIT(A) on 10.12.2019, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings because of his death. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon 10. In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to setting aside of the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) and remand of the matter pertaining to the quantum proceedings, to the Assessing Officer for decision fresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, we are also of the view that in order to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, who claims himself to be legal representative of the assessee, the matter pertaining to quantum proceedings be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. We order accordingly. Result 12. As a result, ITA No. 730/JPR/2025 is disposed of, and while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the matter pertaining in quantum proceedings is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in accordance with law. 13. ITA No. 731/JPR/2025.- Since, as noticed above, the matter appearing to the quantum proceeding has been remanded to the Assessing Officer, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) and the penalty order, passed by the Assessing Officer, as regarding penalty, deserve to be Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon set aside. Same are hereby set aside, with the observation that the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed, as regards penalty, in accordance with law, after conclusion of the quantum proceedings Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of common order be placed in the file of connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 31/07/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Madan Lal Bapna, L/h of Vinod Bapna, Gurgaon. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "