MAHIPAL SINGH ,JAIPUR V. ACTI, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 75/JPR/2024

AI Insights

Mahipal Singh, the appellant, contested the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had disallowed certain amounts claimed in his income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. The disallowances included Rs. 5,50,000 for cash deposited during the demonetization period and Rs. 12,36,000 as unexplained money received during his marriage. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed his appeal due to non-representation and lack of necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted the appellant's repeated failure to appear or provide adequate representation, leading to the dismissal of his appeal on procedural grounds as well as on substantive grounds concerning the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312530 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL PARIHAR; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Gift

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 75/JPR/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mahipal Singh, 10-11, Chand Bihari Nagar, Near Lal Mandir Khatipura, Jhotwara, Jaipur – 302012. PAN No. FHBPS 0107P ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 29/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 01/05/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 26.09.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. That, on the facts and circumstance of the case, Hon’ble commissioner of appeal was not justified in disallowing the of Rs. 5, 50,000/- u/s. 69A as cost cash 2 deposited during the period of demonetization without appreciating the books of accounts of the applicant the consequent addition made deserves to be deleted. 2. That, on the facts and circumstance of the case, Hon’ble commissioner of appeal was not justified in disallowing the of Rs. 5,50,000/- u/s. 69A as cost cash deposited during the period of demonetization without appreciating the cash in hand in the books of the assesses the consequent addition made deserves to be deleted. 3. That, on the facts and circumstance of the case, Hon’ble commissioner of appeal was not justified in disallowing the sum of Rs. 12, 36,000/- u/s. 68 as unexplained money without appreciating the facts the amount has been received by the applicant from various guests on the function of his marriage and marriage gift is exempt from tax, the consequent addition made deserves to be deleted. 4. That levy of additional tax and interest and the thereby raising a demand consequently, is erroneous and in the alternative excessive. 5. That, Hon’ble commissioner of appeal erred in initiating penalty u/s. 271AAC (1) r.w.s.115BBE (1) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant crapes leave to ad, amend, withdraw any grounds of appeals before or during the course of hearing before the Hon’ble Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 26.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 1,32,16,230/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of royalty collection from mines located at Banswara and Dungarpur Districts. After a detailed deliberation the case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 5.5 Lacs u/s. 69A of the Act being amount of cash deposited in his bank account in old denomination currency during the demonetization period, i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and Rs. 12.36 Lacs being cash and jewellery received on the occasion of his own marriage. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. 3 CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee being not represented and necessary explanation/evidences were also not furnished. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. Before we proceed to adjudicate the matter, it is brought to our notice by registry that the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 60 days. On this issue, the assessee filed an affidavit without any application for condonation of delay. As per this affidavit the assessee never received any order, rather the same was received by his CA Sh. S.K. Gupta on his e-mail id and he could not convey the assessee because of his involvement in meeting the deadlines of Tax Audit and ITR filing. Looking at the explanation of the assessee and days of delay, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee available on file alongwith the grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee was never turned up before the Ld. CIT (A) and before us also despite of late filing of appeal on 25.01.2024; none appeared on behalf of the assessee till 29.04.2025. It certainly establishes the casual approach of the assessee. Since inception the counsel of the assessee Sh. S.K. Gupta applied for adjournment for one reason or another and bench always took a lenient view on the same. But, bothered to appear or represent the matter even after more than ten adjournments granted to the assessee. 4. As the matter involved is purely a question of fact to be substantiated with the help of corroborative evidences and no question of law is involved, where the bench itself can decide the matter even in the absence of the assessee. No evidence whatsoever ever furnished by the assessee before the bench to arrive at 4 a conclusion. In view of the above, considering the background of the assessee’s behaviour and continuity of the same before us also, we don’t have any other option except to dismiss the same. In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed and orders of the authorities below are confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 1st day of May 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 01/05/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 4. िवभागीय \u000eितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 01.05.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 01.05.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order 5 "