NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA,SIKAR V. ITO WD 2, SIKAR, SIKAR

ITA 968/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves New Shri Krishna Plaza, a firm, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary grievances included the ex-parte dismissal of their appeal and the confirmation of disallowances and additions made under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted that the assessee's previous counsel had failed to actively pursue the matter or comply with notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The ITAT, prioritizing a decision on merits, restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781596 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 40A(3)

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 vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 968/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 New Shri Krishna Plaza Chainpura Kuli Road, Dantaramgarh Sikar cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -2 Sikar LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMFN 5658 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 15.04.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the lid CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte solely due to non appearance without appreciating the merits of the case. The action of the ld CIT(A) is unjustified arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice Relief may please be granted by setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the matter to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO.968/JPR/2025 NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,90,925/- made under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 without appreciating the business exigencies and reasonable cause for incurring such expenditure in cash The action of the Id CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, and deserves to be set aside. Relief may please be granted by deleting the disallowance so confirmed 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 15,95,500 made under Section 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits without properly appreciating the explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee The addition is arbitrary based on suspicion and conjecture, and liable to be deleted 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Id. AO in invoking the provisions of Section 1158BE of the Income-tax Act. 1961 The said invocation is erroneous, unwarranted, and without legal basis. Relief may please be granted by quashing the applicability of Section 115BBE in the present case.’’ 2.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order from para 5.1 to 6 is reproduced as under:- ‘’5.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record in respect of this ground of appeal as brought out in the assessment order. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer found that the assessee had made cash payments in a day of Rs. 4,90,925/-(more than 20,000-) which was in violation of section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 and the assessee had deposited unexplained/unaccounted cash amounting to Rs 15,95,500/- in its bank account during the demonetization period. Subsequently, a notice uls 142(1) of the Income Tax act. 1961 was issued along with Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO.968/JPR/2025 NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR various other notices. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act dated 19.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs. 21,20,320/- 5.2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. The appellant has challenged the addition in the different grounds of appeal However, the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition The appellant has also not submitted any copy of its written submission or documentary evidence filed during the assessment proceedings. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed a written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given as detailed in the preceding paras, In absence of any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as i have no reason to interfere with the assessment order As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer Therefore. Addition of Rs. 15,95,500/- and Rs. 4,90,925/- is hereby sustained on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as the earlier counsel engaged by the assessee neither actively pursued the matter before the ld. CIT(A) nor made compliance to the notices of the ld. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO.968/JPR/2025 NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR CIT(A). Hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO as to the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.20,86,425/- (i.e. 15,95,500 + 4,90,925) in the assessment order. To this effect, the partner of the firm Shri Sharwan Kumar Budrak has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to the lapse on the part of earlier counsel to pursue the case before the ld. CIT(A). 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object to the request of the ld. AR of the assessee to restore the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which has filed the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.33,890/-.During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had made cash payments in a day of Rs.4,90,925/- (more than 20,000/-) which was in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and the assessee had deposited unexplained / unaccounted cash amounting to Rs.15,95,000/- in its bank account during the demonetization period. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued alongwith various other notices. The assesse failed to give a satisfactory reply to the AO. Hence, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO.968/JPR/2025 NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR 19-12-2019 assessing the total income at Rs.21,20,320/- and thus making following additions in the hands of the assessee (1) Rs.4,90,925/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. (2) Rs.15,95,500/- u/s 69A of the Act In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply/ documentary evidence in respect of its appeal filed before him despite several opportunities to the assessee. Since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A),therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that several opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. However, we are 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 opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO.968/JPR/2025 NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- New Shri Krishna Plaza, Sikar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -2, Sikar 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 968/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "