PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,PONKH UDAIPURWATI JHUNJHUNU RAJASTHANAJASTHAN V. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 392/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ponkh Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte assessment order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Jhunjhunu, which added Rs.5,70,51,038 to the assessee's income as unexplained investment in unlisted equities for the assessment year 2022-23. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this addition, leading to the appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not been adequately represented in previous proceedings and decided to restore the case to the AO to allow the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360809 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment
• Section: 144

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 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.392/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2022-23 Ponkh Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd C/O Anil Kumar Sharma,C.A. 407, DBC Complex, Near Pink City Petrol Pump, Opp. Hotel Gangaur, M.I.Road, Jaipur- 302 004 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward – 1 Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABAP 7516 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR & Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 19 /05/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-02-2025, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2022-23 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in passing the impugned ex-parte order 2 ITA NO.392/JPR/2025 PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU and in upholding the relevant ex-parte assessment order dated 29-02-2024. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,70,51,038/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment in unlisted equities.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the assessment order made by the AO. The narration as made in the ld.CIT(A) order at para 7 to 8 is reproduced as under:- ‘’7.0 In view of the discussion as above and facts of the case, it seems that the appellant has nothing to add in this matter, despite getting three (03) opportunities. The appellant has only filed an appeal in the form No. 35. It is seen that the appellant has not been able to explain source of investment of Rs.5,70,51,038/- with supporting documents neither at scrutiny proceedings nor at appellate proceedings. Even the A.O. has passed the order u/s.144 for want of compliance from the appellant. The appellant has not filed any written submission/document with respect to ground raised in form-35. In the given circumstances and paucity of any evidence supporting the appellant's ground of appeal, it is difficult to take a view on merits against the Assessment order passed by the AO. 7.1 Therefore, it is held that no interference is required to the impugned addition made by the AO. The grounds of appeals are therefore dismissed and the Assessment order is upheld. 8.0 In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.’’ 3 ITA NO.392/JPR/2025 PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities because earlier counsel engaged by the assessee could not properly follow up the matter and thus could not advance the arguments / written submission before the Revenue Authorities and thus he prayed to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication and justice to the assessee. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. During the course of arguments, we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-pate order mentioning therein that the assessee has not filed any written submission /documents with respect to ground raised in Form 35 and thus he dismissed the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the AO had also passed an ex- parte order being no response from the assessee within given time by the AO and he completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act making addition of Rs.5,70,51,038/- in the hands of the assessee. It is noticed that the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he should be given one more chance to advance the documents / written submission as to the addition of Rs.5,70,51,038/- before the AO so that the dispute in question could be resolved. From the entire conspectus of 4 ITA NO.392/JPR/2025 PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU the case, the Bench feels that since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex- parte before the AO and also 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 various 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 AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 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 on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 5 ITA NO.392/JPR/2025 PONKH GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 19 /05/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ 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:- 19 /05/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Ponkh Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jhunjhunu. 2izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 1, Jhunjhunu. 3vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 392/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "