MANOJ JAIN,JAIPUR V. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

MA 66/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Manoj Jain against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-4, Jaipur, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The ITAT initially dismissed the appeal due to the non-admission of additional evidence, which the assessee failed to substantiate adequately. However, upon filing a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee argued that the Tribunal had overlooked significant grounds and submissions during the initial hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and the violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to recall the earlier order and direct a fresh examination of the additional evidence and the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28512 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT VIJAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 254(2); 133(6)

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 Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM MA No. 66/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la- ITA No. 286/JP/2021) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Jain F-946(D), Road No. 14, VKI Area, Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABPPJ 0403 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Arpit Vijay, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary , JCIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 05/02/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Act against the order of ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in ITA No. 286/JP/2021 dated 01.05.2023 praying therein following reasons to suitably modify or recall of its order: “I, Manoj Jain, the above named assessee applicant would like to submit that: 1. That the Appellant had filed an Income-Tax appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench ‘SMC’, Jaipur for MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 2 the assessment year 2011-12 against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and the same was disposed-off by the Hon’ble ITAT vide order ITA No. 286/JP/2021, dated 01/05/2023. 2. That on perusal of the aforesaid order dated 01/05/2023, following mistake was noticed which are apparent on the face of the record and is required to be rectified. 3. That the Hon’ble Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the only basis of not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant and passed the order dated 01/05/2023 without considering the below mentioned Grounds of Appeals, relevant submissions and case laws as submitted by the appellant: Ground No. 1: “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 is void-ab-initio deserves to be quashed because the basis of reasons recorded for reopening of the case is not valid.” Ground No. 2 “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action and finding of Ld. AO regarding re-computing the loss from speculation business of Rs. (-) 45,49,103.75/- instead of Rs. (-) 76,35,727/- as declared by the appellant.” Ground No. 3 “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO on the basis of information submitted by different persons in response to notice u/s 133(6) without giving opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice.” 4. Through this miscellaneous application the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Tribunal passed the order ITA No. 286/JP/2021, dated 01/05/2023 for the AY 2011-12 without considering the above mentioned Grounds of Appeals, arugments and various case laws furnished by appellant during the course of hearing and therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record and request for recalling the order.” 2. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ITAT, Jaipur (supra) praying that the assessee wants to get ITAT’s order reviewed in the grab of Miscellaneous Application. MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 3 3. The bench noted the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the bench by observing as under:- “3.2 The Bench has taken into consideration the application of the assessee relating to admission of additional evidences but does not find any adequate reason to admit the same on the ground that these additional evidences could have been placed either before the AO during assessment proceedings or before the ld. CIT(A) at appellate proceedings. It is worthwhile to mention that the assessment order was passed by the AO on 24.12.2018 whereas the appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) 28.09.2021. Thus the Bench conclusively noted that the ld. AR of the assessee failed to substantiate appropriate reason for admission of additional evidences. In this situation, the Bench does not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in view of the findings of the ld. CIT(A).” 3.1 As is clear that the bench has decided merely on the aspect of the matter that assessee failed to file any adequate reasons to admit the additional evidence and thereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without dealing with the other two technical grounds raised by the assessee. Thus, we note that there appears to be mistake while disposing of the appeal of the assessee and the considering the principles of natural justice the present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee deserve to be admitted. Considering that aspect of the matter 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 an MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 4 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Based on this observation, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 4. Now after recalling the order, the case needs to be decided on its merits. During the hearing the bench heard the rival parties on merit also. 5. As is evident from the record that the prayer of the assessee in this case that his legal grounds were not decided. Not only that the prayer of the assessee was that the ld. AO after issuing a letter u/s 133(6) of the Act has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to deal with merits of the case when the fact confronted these aspects of the matter, he has filed the prayer for additional evidence and that fact were not properly placed on record and now the assessee placed as chart so as to support the contention that why the additional evidence were not placed on record before the ld. AO. The relevant fact expressing as to why the additional evidence was required to be filed was explained by the ld. AR of the assessee by filling in a chart as reproduced herein below:- MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 5 6. Ld. DR did not object to the prayer the assessee that while passing the order by the Assessing Officer, that he has not MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 6 confronted the material to the assessee collected u/s. 133(6) of the Act and thereby the principle of natural justice has been violated and the assessee also needs to substantiate their facts by filing the additional evidence so as to resolving to dispute. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The bench prima facie noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed because the assessee could not relate to the admission of additional evidence and also could not substantiate the reasons as to why the same could be admitted as additional evidence. Therefore, the bench has not considered the additional evidence prayer filed by the assessee before the bench as well as ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that though the additional evidence relates to the merits of the case and the other two grounds of technical issue were also not considered and disposed off by the bench while deciding the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the ld. AO issued letter u/s 133(6) of the Act on 27.11.2018. The reply of the said letter was received by the AO on 09.11.2018 and thereby AO proceeded to pass an order on 24.12.2018 thereby even the AO has not given the proper opportunity of being MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 7 heard to the assessee on its merits to confront to the assessee particular collected and relied upon. Therefore, he prayed that the principle of nature justice has been violated and therefore the additional evidence needs to be considered in the interest of justice. Considering that aspect of the matter we consider the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee and admit the additional evidence and we direct the ld. AO to considered the additional evidence and decide the issue after considering the evidences so given. In terms of these observations, in ITA No. 286/JP/2021 is allowed. 8. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law. In the result, Miscellaneous Application as well as appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above. MA No. 66/JP/2023 Manoj Jain vs.DCIT 8 Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 05/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Manoj Jain, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-04, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 66/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "