MAHESH MEDATWAL,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD,1 (4), JAIPUR

ITA 607/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, who appealed against the assessment order for the year 2013-14, which computed his total income at Rs. 19,56,132. The assessment was initiated based on information that the assessee had sold joint immovable property and received a substantial amount, yet had not filed a return for the relevant assessment year. Despite receiving notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee failed to comply, leading to the initial assessment order. The CIT(A) upheld this order, prompting the appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the non-compliance during the pandemic and the nature of the income involved, deciding to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771808 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI; THROUGH V.C
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 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,”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. 607/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Mahesh Medatwal 1056, Jhalaniyon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPM8635E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28 /08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, On 19.02.2025, Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, passed order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2013-14, and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while upholding the assessment order. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 607/JPR/2025 Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. That appeal was preferred by the assessee, while challenging assessment order dated 26.03.2022 as the total income of the assessee was thereby computed at Rs. 19,56,132/-. What led to Initiation of Assessment Proceedings? 2. The assessment proceedings came to be initiated as information was received by the department that the assessee had sold joint immovable property and received huge amount in consideration, but, the assessee had not even filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2021. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,132/-. However, thereafter, the assessee did not comply with the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, issued on 17.11.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 14.12.2021 and 28.01.2022. While allowing request of the assessee for adjournment on 09.03.2022, fresh notice dated 12.03.2022 was issued to the assessee, but still he did not comply with the notices. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. 3. As noticed above, the assessment order came to be upheld. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 607/JPR/2025 Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. 5. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing that the assessee was issued three notices i.e. on 01.01.2025, 14.01.2025 and 24.01.2025, but, the assessee did not respond thereto. 6. As regards non compliance before Learned CIT(A), Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the three notices were issued within a short span of one month, and as such, the assessee could not respond. 7. It is true that notices were issued in the first, second and third week of January, 2025, but, what to say of non compliance, there was even non appearance on behalf of the appellant before Learned CIT(A). Form 35 was submitted before Learned CIT(A) online. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed that the appellant had the assistance of tax consultant/AR for the purpose of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). In the given situation, appropriate steps were required to be taken even by the authorized representative of the appellant, but no steps appearance to have been taken. 8. When questioned about non compliance before the Assessing Officer dispute issuance of notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) of the Act, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee could not comply with the same. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 607/JPR/2025 Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. The only submission put forth by the Ld. AR for the appellant is that the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer so that the assessee is able to produce all the relevant evidence/material there, on the issues involved. 9. Even through, in the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not explained non compliance by the assessee during assessment proceedings, we find that it was a period of Covid pandemic. Furthermore, we take into consideration the issues involved i.e. income from sale of immovable property and deposit of the said amount. 10. Ld. DR for the department has also no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer. 11. Having regards to all the facts and circumstances, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the files of the Assessing Officer. Result 12. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the Assessing Officer is directed to make assessment afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 607/JPR/2025 Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. 13. However as noticed above, the assessee failed to comply with three notices issued by Learned CIT(A). As regards said non compliance, the assessee is burdened with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The appellant to produce before the Assessing Officer, receipt in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- imposed today, and thereupon, the Assessing Officer shall commence proceedings. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2025. 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:- 28/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Mahesh Medatwal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(4), 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. 607/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "