NUTAN CHANDANI,JAIPUR V. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT

ITA 1325/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nutan Chandani, the appellant, who challenged the assessment order for the year 2013-14, which computed her total income at Rs. 4,16,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) alleged that the appellant received unexplained money from various parties in return for higher returns, which remained unexplained despite opportunities to explain. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance in providing explanations. The tribunal, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the appellant's denial of receipt of any such amounts, decided to remand the case for a fresh decision, providing the appellant another opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469973 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PALLAVI JOSHI
• Section: 148; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh xxu Xkks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1325/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nutan Chandani 7-CHA 5, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 6(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOBPC9927P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Mrs. Pallavi Joshi, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27 /02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2025 PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Appellant-assessee filed an appeal before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi challenging assessment order dated 29.05.2023relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing that despite ample opportunities afforded to the appellant for furnishing of explanation in respect of the grounds of appeal, the appellant failed to comply with the same. 2 ITA No. 1325/JPR/2024 Nutan Chandani vs. ITO 3. Vide assessment order, the Assessing Officer had computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,16,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), while arriving at the conclusion that the assessee had received Rs. 4,16,00,000/- from various parties by offering them higher returns, and the said amounts remained unexplained despite opportunity. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not participate in the proceedings before Learned CIT(A) for want of sufficient time, and as such, matter be remanded for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Department has referred to the impugned order and submitted that ample opportunities were afforded to the appellant before deciding the appeal, but the appellant failed to comply with the directions contained in the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), and as such, there is no ground for remand of the matter. 7. In para 2 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) specified the dates of issuance of 5 notices by its office to the appellant in the appeal. 3 ITA No. 1325/JPR/2024 Nutan Chandani vs. ITO First notice was dated 28.06.2024, then dated 11.07.2024, followed by other notices dated 29.07.2024, 23.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 were issued. 8. As is available from the information provided in relevant column of table in para 2 of the impugned order, the appellant remained noncompliant as regards notices issued on 29.07.2024, 03.09.2024, whereas on other 3 dates i.e. 05.07.2024, 25.07.2024 and 30.08.2024, the assessee sought adjournment. 9. It was for the appellant to justify non participation in the appeal proceedings, but, no satisfactory explanation has been put forth. However, keeping in view the issues involved, we find that another opportunity be granted to the appellant for effective adjudication of the issues involved. 10. The case of the assessee was reopened by way of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to the said notice. He also did not respond to the subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, but, he responded to letter dated 04.02.2023. 11. The reason for reopening of the case, as mentioned in the assessment order, is receipt of unexplained money to tune of Rs. 4,16,00,000/-, whereas the appellant had filed return of income declaring total income only to the extent of Rs. 1,99,960/-. 4 ITA No. 1325/JPR/2024 Nutan Chandani vs. ITO Further, notices came to be issued to the assessee. During assessment proceedings, statements of various persons were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. In those statements, the deponents stated to have given huge amount in cash to the assessee on promise of return, but, as further stated by them, the assessee did not return them the amounts received from them. In view of the allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement, FIRs are stated to have been lodged by 6 persons against the assessee. 12. During assessment proceedings, the assessee denied to have received any amount from the concerned persons. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to disclose the amounts received by her, as per statements of the aforesaid persons. That is how, assessment order was framed. 13. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations and the reply put forth by the assessee therein denying to have received any amount from any such person, matter needs to be remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh. However, because of non diligence on the part of the assessee before Learned CIT(A), we impose cost of Rs. 2500/-. Cost to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Funds”. 5 ITA No. 1325/JPR/2024 Nutan Chandani vs. ITO Result 14. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A), NFAC is restored to its original number. Learned CIT(A) to afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Appellant to participate in the proceedings, and comply with the directions to be issued by Learned CIT(A), from time to time, without fail. 15. Copy of challen/ receipt in proof of deposit of cost to be presented before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on restoration. 16. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 06/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Nutan Chandani, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(1),Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 6 ITA No. 1325/JPR/2024 Nutan Chandani vs. ITO 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.1325/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "