MOHAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1223/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, who appealed against the order of the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the AO regarding Short Term Capital Gain and unexplained agricultural income for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially filed with a delay of 94 days, attributed to the assessee's lack of awareness of the ex-parte order due to not having a personal email ID. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with procedural requirements during the assessment and appellate proceedings but decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present his case before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779570 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PAYAL JHORAR; OBSERVING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Cost of acquisition; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 148; 144

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; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 1(1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 14 /10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ]dated 25-03-2025, for the assessment year 2018- 19 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the order passed by the Ld. A.O. which is liable to be quashed. Kindly quash the same. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O amounting to Rs. 29,78,334/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain from sale on immovable property. The addition of Rs. 29,78,334/- made to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition Rs. 1,41,200/- u/s 69A on agricultural income. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee was filed with a delay of 94 days. Today the assessee has filed an application dated 13-10-2025 for condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the fact of passing of ex- parte order dated 25-03-2025 by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi as neither he has any personal e-mail ID nor heoperates any e-mail ID. The assessee has submitted that the E-Mail ID of earlier counsel was mentioned in Form No. 35 for communication [e-mail] but he did not communicate to the assessee about passing of ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A) and thereby the appeal was filed with delay of 94 days. The submissions as made by the assessee in his application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:- ‘’1. That I am an individual and agriculturist & belong to a rural area. 2. That I have filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 02.09.2025 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC dated 25.03.2025 (i.e. with a delay of 94 days). The appeal number is ITA 1223/JPR/2025. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 3. That I don't have my personal email ID and I don't operate any e-mail ID. 4. That at the time of filling of appeal before CIT (Appeals), the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 for communication was my earlier counsel [e-mail] (ie belongs to my earlier counsel) and I was totally dependent on him. 5. That all hearing notices and the ex-parte orders of CIT(Appeals) were communicated to email address of my earlier counsel (i.e. [e-mail]) 6. That after a long time, in last week of month of August, 2025, 1 visited the office of my earlier counsel regarding the status of appeal and then he checked the status of appeal on income tax portal and informed me that your appeal was dismissed by CIT (Appeals), NFAC on 25.03.2025. 7 Thereafter, I consulted this with another counsel and he suggested me to file an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench with immediate effect. 8. Then, I engaged a new counsel and he filed the appeal accordingly before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 02.09.2025 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC with delay of 94 days. 9. That the delay of 94 days was due to unaware about the adverse ex- parte order dated 25.03.2025. 10. That I was unaware about the adverse order passed by CIT (Appeals) and same is the bonafide reason of delay in filing of appeal which is beyond my control. 11. The delay was bonafide, unintentionally and beyond my control. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 94 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant. The assessee prays accordingly.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR To this effect, the assessee Shri Mohan Lal Yadav has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above stated facts as to the delay in filing of the appeal. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR has objected to such inordinate delay made by the assessee in late filing the appeal by the assessee but he submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both parties and perusing the material available on record, the Bench noticed that the Revenue has not brought any material to suggest as to the mode of service of notice and the impugned order. So, we have no option but to say that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal before ITAT. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos of the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT (A) after providing ample opportunities to the assessee had dismissed the appeal by holding that the assessee had neither furnished any written submission in support of his claim nor any arguments were Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR advanced to rebut the estimated income determined by the AO. The narrations so made by the ld CIT(A) in his order at para 6 to 6.6 are reproduced as under:- ‘’6. I have carefully considered the assessment order, the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and the relevant provisions of law. In response to the notices issued under Section 250 of the Act, no written submissions and documents in support of the grounds of appeal have been filed till date. 6.1 The present appeal pertains to the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The case revolves around short term capital gains and denial of claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer issued multiple statutory notices under Sections 148, 142(1), and 144 of the Act, to which the appellant failed to respond 6.2 At the appellate stage, the appellant has not fumished any written submission in support of his claim. No arguments have been advanced by him in his statement of facts and grounds of appeal to rebut the estimated income determined by the AO. The appellant has chosen not to furnish a cogent explanation of the sale transaction and alleged agricultural income along with reliable evidence in support of his contentions and grounds of appeal despite ample opportunity and time allowed during the appellate proceedings In such circumstances, the undersigned is left with no alternative but to presume that the appellant has no further submissions in support of his averments made in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being decided keeping in view the facts brought on record by the AO in the assessment order and by the appellant in the grounds of appeal and statement of facts. 6.3 Based on the material available on record, the appellant's contentions are not acceptable because of specific findings in the assessment order about no evidence being adduced by the appellant to corroborate the claim made. In the absence of any cogent material to explain the transactions, the stand of the AO cannot be faulted. In absence of any evidence, the AO has taken a fair view of granting benefit of cost of land to the extent of 1/3rd amount of the sale consideration. No evidence with respect to agricultural income was furnished during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 6.4 With respect to validity of re-opening of assessment, it is observed that the assessment has been re-opened on the basis of specific information with respect to sale of immoveable property. The Appellant has not participated during the course of re-assessment proceedings and now cannot allege that the re-opening Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR of the assessment was not in accordance with the law. The Appellant ought to have raised objections to the re-opening of the assessment at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Having not done so, the grounds raised relating to failure of AO to provide information and copy of approval under Section 151 are redundant and devoid of merits. In view of these facts, the AO has rightly re-opened the assessment and brought undisclosed income to tax. 6.5 Based on the facts mentioned above, detalled discussion in the assessment order by the AO and in the absence of any written submission by the appellant, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO. 6.6 Because of the facts mentioned above, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the AO and I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO. Hence, Grounds of appeal No. 1 to 5 are found to be not maintainable. Accordingly. the same are hereby dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents before the AO as to addition of Rs.1,41,200/- u/s 69A of the Act made by him and restore the appeal to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication and the reason for non appearing was the assessee was not aware of the notices so issued as was not having any email id and thereby the assessee in the interest of the justice needs one more chance. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee theassessee is an individual and claims to be a small tax payer. Record shows that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information that the assessee had sold immovable property for Rs.89,35,000/- but no ITR was filed for the year under consideration. Notices u/s 148A(b) dated 14-02-2022 was issued to the assesee,providing him an opportunity to submit the details/ information as to the sale of immovable property but the assessee did not submit the details. Ultimately, the AO made addition of Rs.1,41,200/- u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee by observing at page 3 of his order as under:- ‘’Thusit is clear that sufficient opportunities have been provided to the assessee for submitting its response but the assessee has deliberately avoided the submission of details. In view of the above it is assumed that the assessee has nothing to submit in this regards and the case is decided as per the material available on records. As per the information available on records the assesse along with two other persons has sold immoveable property for Rs. 89,35,000/- to Shri Krishna yadav on 16/11/2017 The assessee has not submitted any details regarding the cost of acquisition, improvements or expenses incurred by him on the sale of the property. Accordingly the 1/3rd of the total sale consideration received for the transaction ie Rs. 29,78,334/- is treated as Short Term Capital Gain for the period under consideration and added back to the income of the assessee, Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act are initiated separately for misreporting of income. Further the assesse was asked to submit complete details of any other income, however no details of any kind have been submitted, accordingly the claim of agricultural income for Rs. 141200/- is being denied and added back to the income of the assessee as income from unexplained sources under the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR provisions of section 69A of the Act. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act in initiated separately.’’ In first appeal, ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not advanced any written submission to counter the assessment order. The Bench has taken into consideration the entire gamut of the case that the assessee remained non-compliant before AO despite several opportunities and notices. Ld. AR has requested that appellant be provided with one more opportunity to contest the case. The Bench also feels that it was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authority as and when he was called for. 3.4. Keeping in view the issue involved and that various opportunities were provided to the assessee but he did not avail of same, we deem it to be a fit case where assessee should be afforded another opportunity to contest the case before the AO though subject to costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited into the “Prime Minister Relief Fund”. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh in accordance with law by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground, and Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnzdqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Mohan Lal Yadav, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1223/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA NO. 1123/JPR/2025 SHRI MOHAN LAL YADAV VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "