PRASHANT SINGH,JAIPUR V. ITO WD 1(3), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 1340/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Prashant Singh, who filed an appeal against the orders of the Income Tax Department concerning the assessment year 2018-19. Initially, Singh declared an income of Rs. 7,72,670, which was later found to include undisclosed commission income of Rs. 16,33,400 from M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, leading to a reassessment order that added this commission to Singh's income. Singh appealed this order, and a subsequent reassessment accepted his original return, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal's decision involved verifying certain entries in the tax records and adjusting the assessed income accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398069 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHANI MEHARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prashant Singh 48 Ram Bhawan, Virandvan Vihar Kings Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANVPS3091B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : MS. Suhani Meharwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04/06/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present appeal filed by the above-named assessee for Assessment year 2018-19 which arises out of the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 25/09/2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO] under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] on 17.09.2021. 2 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances as well as law order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Appeal is without providing reasonable opportunity, being against the principal of natural justice which is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances as well as law the impugned assessment has been quashed by passing of an another assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on dated 06/03/2023 by which the return income of assessee has been accepted. Therefore, the impugned assessment become null. 3. The assessee deserves right to amend, alter, delete and modify any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed return of income on 03/07/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,72,670/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. On verification of data, ld. AO revealed that the assessee received Commission of Rs. 16,33,400/- during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 from the company M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Further on verification of Income Tax Return filed by the assessee, for the year under consideration, it is seen that the assessee has not shown any Commission income for the A.Y. 2018-19 to that extent. In view of these facts, case of the assessee was re-opened for scrutiny after obtaining prior approval from Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. Accordingly Notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act was issued to the assessee on 14/08/2019 which was served on the assessee by e-mail on 14/08/2019 to assessee. The assessee did 3 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO not filed return of income against notice u/s 148 dated 14/08/2019 within stipulated time period, therefore on 28/01/2021 notice u/s 142 was issued for filing his return of income, however no return of income was filed by the assessee. Since there was no compliance whatsoever on the part of the assessee, to any of the above-mentioned notices and the assessee has also not filed return of income in response to notices u/s. 148/142(1) thereby the submission / explanation to the final show cause notice issued on 06/09/2021. The non-compliance with all the notices issued indicated only the callous indifference on the part of the assessee. Therefore, Commission received by the assessee of Rs. 16,33,400 /- was added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), is reiterated here in below: 7. The Discussion and Decision-Ground-2-Addition of Rs.1633400/- on account of commission receipt- (a) This ground arises from the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1633400/- in respect of the commission received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 4 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO It is noted from the impugned order that the assessee-appellant had filed the return of Income for the year under consideration on 03.07.2018 with a returned income of Rs. 772670/-. The Ld. AO was in possession of information of receipt of commission income of Rs.1633400/- by the assessee from a company (M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd.) during the year under consideration. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 and the assessee had not filed return in response to the same and neither was there any response/compliance. During the subject reassessment proceedings opportunities of being neard were offered to the assessee by the Ld. AO w.r.t. the above mentioned subject matter, however there was no response from the assessee which compelled the Ld. AO to complete the subject assessment as best judgement assessment based on the details available on record by making addition of Rs. 1633400/- w.r.t. commission of Rs. 1633400/- received by the assessee during the year from the company, (b) On the other hand, during the course of the present appellate proceedings the appellant was offered several opportunities of being heard from time to time at regular intervals requesting him to make submissions in support of aforementioned grounds duly supported by relevant details/evidences/etc. But, as elaborated in the earlier part of this order there has been absolutely no compliance from the appellant. In fact this is a clear case of total NO COMPLIANCE from the appellant. In other words, it is clearly, forthcoming that the appellant during the present appellate proceedings has not oven argued with any cogent arguments/averments/contentions with supporting relevant details to controvert the observations/findings of the Ld. AO and to negate the conclusions drawn therefrom by the Ld. AO in the impugned order. (c) At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that there has been no compliance from the appellant to the multiple opportunities offered to him during the course of the present appellate proceedings and apart from GoA/SoF, there is no other material available on record to decipher the contentions/submissions of the appellant in the present appeal. Thus, based on the limited details available on the record, the probable contentions which could be primarily discernible are that the Ld AO NFAC erred in making addition of Rs. 1633400.00 on account of commission receipts in spite of fact that such commission had already been taken in total income declared by him. In this respect, it is evident that the underlying contentions/submissions/arguments of the appellant cannot be deciphered from the above details. Alternatively also, it is again mentioned that-during the course 5 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO of the present appellate proceedings multiple opportunities had been offered to the appellant from time to time but there has been no compliance front the appellant In fact this is a TOTAL NO COMPLIANCE case For this very reason such contentions/claims of the appellant are evidently non-specific and vague as well as fat short of merit since none of them is backed by any specific details/evidences, whatsoever, and thus reduce to merely making plain submissions which are not backed by any evidence or specific details and hence, such bare submissions lack credence for consideration. Further, it is noted that the Ld. AO has recorded in the impugned order that during the year under consideration the assessee was in receipt of commission of Rs. 1633400.The details available on record indicate that these facts are NOT in dispute. Thus, in other words mentioned that the assessee-appellant has NOT denied the receipt of captioned common of Rs. 1633400/-during the year under consideration Under such circumstances, the statutory onus was squarely on the assessee to show whether the same has been offered to tax and if so then to provide specific details and working thereof with relevant evidences. It is discernible from the impugned order that the Lo AO had offered multiple opportunities to the assessee during the subject assessment proceedings in this regard, however, there no compliance from the appellant and this compelled the Ld. AO to conclude that the assessee had failed to discharge the statutory onus in this regard. A relevant extract of the impugned order in this respect is reproduced as under: 4. The assessee have not furnished any submission/explanation to the final show cause notice issued on 06/09/2021. The non-compliance with all the notices issued indicated only the callous indifference of the part of the assessee. I am, therefore, constrained to complete the assessment ex- parte under section 144 r.w.s 147 to the best of my judgment, on the basis of the information available on record. 5 On verification of AIR data, assessee has received Com1933100-during the FY 2017-18 relevant to AV. 2018-19 from the company Future Make Care Pvt. Ltd on which TDS of Rs. 81.870. Further on verification of Income Tax Rum fled by the assessee for the year under consideration, it is seen from the Income Tax Return, that the assessee has not shown any commission income for the AY 2018-19. Therefore, Commission received by the assessee of Rs. 16,33,400/- is added to the total income of the 6 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO assessee. Penalty proceedings is 270A are initiated separately for under reporting of the Income by the assessee. During the course of the present appellate proceedings the appellant has NOT adduced any evidences supporting reason's for such non-compliance during the course of the subject assessment proceedings. Thus, it is evident that the assessment had squarely failed to discharge this onus statutorily cast upon him in this regard. The position has not improved even during the present appellate proceedings as the appellant has merely submitted that such commission of Rs. 1633400/- had already been taken into account in the income however, such submission is neither backed by any specific, details and corresponding workings nor by any evidence even though the appellant was offered several opportunities but there has been ABSOLUTELY NO COMPLIANCE in this case. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the matter it CANNOT be said that the assessee had discharged the statutory onus cast upon him in the present matter. In this context it would be pertinent to add that as noted in para 5 of this order, the appellant had uploaded an application for admission of additional evidences and the same was not backed by any of such corresponding additional evidences. The fact remains that he has not submitted any detail or adduced even a single piece of evidence during the course of the present appellate proceedings inspite of being offered several opportunities from time to time for the same. However, this aspect of making an application for admission of additional evidences and contents thereof clearly underline that even as per the appellant such details were sine-qua-non for examining underlying corresponding claims. Thus, this submission of the appellant fortifies the conclusion of the Ld. AO and hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the corresponding ground does not succeed, hence, DISMISSED. 8. In the result, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. 5. Aggrieved with that order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. To support the various grounds so raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions in 7 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below: Brief Facts of the Case: • The assessee filed his return of income on 03/07/2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 7,72,670/-. • The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. • Subsequently, the case was reopened and an assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 on 17/09/2021, making an addition of Rs. 16,33,400/-. • Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 21/01/2022. • The Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 25/09/2024. Subsequent Development: • It is most respectfully submitted that in the meantime, a fresh reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 has been passed on 06/03/2023 in respect of the same assessment year. • In the said order dated 06/03/2023, the returned income of the assessee as filed originally has been accepted and no addition has been made. (Order Enclosed herewith) • As a result, the impugned assessment order dated 17/09/2021 has been rendered infructuous and stands impliedly quashed. Legal Submissions: • Once a fresh assessment is framed for the same assessment year under the same provision (i.e., u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448), the earlier assessment ceases to survive and becomes non-est in the eyes of law. • The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that if a subsequent valid order is passed for the same assessment year, then any earlier order passed under the same section is deemed to be superseded. Prayer: In light of the above facts and submissions, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned assessment order dated 8 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO 17/09/2021 be held to have been rendered non est and infructuous in view of the subsequent order dated 06/03/2023 accepting the returned income. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the case of the assessee for the same reason was reopened twice. In the first proceeding, the addition was made and in the 2nd reopening the order has been passed after verifying the fact of the case and no separate addition was made that order was passed on 06.03.2023 which is after the date of the order under challenge passed by ld. AO. Therefore, the subsequent order passed by ld. AO shall prevail and the order passed on 17.09.2021 is required to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities and vehemently submitted that the assessee did not comply with the notice issued by the ld. AO. The ld. DR also relied upon the report of the ld. AO dated 02.05.2025 which reads as under:- Subject:- In the appeal pending before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Prashant Singh- (PAN: ANVPS3091B) V/s ITO Ward-1(4), Jaipur ITA No. 1340/JPR/2024, Λ.Υ. 2018-19-reg Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject. In this connection, it is submitted that a report in the above case for the AY 2018-19 has been called for on the submissions/additional evidences furnished by the assessee before your kind good self in support of the grounds of appeal. The admission of grounds of appeal submitted before your good self 9 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO are vehemently opposed as the assessee was provided ample opportunities to furnish the requisite details/documents but it had failed to furnish the same before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, AO made necessary additions/disallowance to the total income of the assessee for the year under reference. Brief details of information collected/ received by the AO: The assessee has filed return of income on 03/07/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,72,670/- The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the LT. Act, 1961. On verification of data, it is revealed that the assessce received Commission of Rs. 16.33.400/- during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 from the company M/Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Further on verification of Income Tax Return filed by the assessce, for the year under consideration, it is seen from the Income Tax Return, that the assessee has not shown any Commission income for the A.Y. 2018-19. So, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1443 on 17.09.2021 at an income of Rs. 24,06,070/-. The assessee then filed the appeal before CITIA), NFAC against the sand assessment order. Meanwhile, a new information was received from the Insight Portal. As per information with received from DDIT(Inv), Rohtak regarding that assessee has received commission of Rs 22,70,870/- from the Ponzi Scheme run by Future Maker Lafe Care Private Limited, which is not shown, received from the Ponzi Scheme run by Future Maker Life Care Private Limited, in his return of income, hence the amount of commission received remains unverifiable. Therefore, a show cause was issued to the assessee, as to why the total transaction amount of Rs.22,70,870/- shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018 19. In response to notice, the assessee has written reply stating that the case has been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AO perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22.70.870/- has not been discussed in assessment order. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable So notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2022 on the basis of undisclosed income of Rs. 22,70,870/ Thereafter, case was transferred to the NFAC for the assessment, the AO, NFAC passed an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 on 06.03.2023 accepting the return income of the assessee, In the order it is mentioned by the AG that any other proceedings going on 10 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO against the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 are independent from these proceedings. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 17.09.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that the assessee has not submitted any detail or adduced even a single piece of evidence during the course of the present appellate proceedings inspite of being offered several opportunities from time to time for the same, hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the corresponding ground does not succeed, hence, DISMISSED. Now, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur against the order a/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi In this regard, the assesses contention that the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 should be tendered infructous in view of the subsequent order dated 06.03.20.2.1 is not acceptable As both the assessment orders are passed on the basis of different information. The assessee during the proceedings of Assessment argued that that the case has already been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AU perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22,70,870/ has not been discussed in the previous assessment under. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Thus the grounds taken by the assessee are not tenable, as thoroughly explained above. Hence, assessee’s submission may not be entertained. Report submitted for kind perusal and necessary action please. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the solitary dispute in this case raised by the assessee is that in this case based on the information of receipt of commission by the assessee, the case was reopened on 14.08.2019 by issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. The bench also noted that in this case an another notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2022 wherein the returned income was accepted by the ld. AO. The 11 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO relevant finding of the ld. AO on the second notice issued by the revenue reads as under: 1. In the case of the assessee Sh. Prashant Singh, PAN: ANVPS3091B, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued on 31-03- 2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 alongwith order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the assessee has been required to file the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee filed electronically the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 18-04-2022 declaring income of Rs. 7,72,670/- in Form No. ITR-3. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued to the assessee on 26-09- 2022 alongwith questionnaire. In response to these notices, the assessee filed written reply alongwith the documents received on 18-10-2022 through e- proceedings. The reply as well as the documents filed by the assessee has been gone through carefully vis-à-vis the information on the basis of which the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued to the assessee and income returned by the assessee at Rs. 7,72,670/- is accepted. So far as the merits of the issue is concerned the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the fresh form no. 26AS wherein the income in name of Future Maker Life Care Private Limited shows plus (+) and thereby minus (-) for an amount of Rs. 11,49,360/- and therefore even on merits since that entry was considered as having been withdrawn from the PAN number of the assessee by that payee i.e. Future Maker Life Care Private Limited no addition is required to be sustained on merits to that extent. When we have gone the report of the ld. AO in the proceeding before us confronting the two assessment on the issue we note the following finding of the ld. AO; Now, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur against the order a/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi In this regard, the 12 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO assesses contention that the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 should be tendered infructous in view of the subsequent order dated 06.03.2023 is not acceptable As both the assessment orders are passed on the basis of different information. The assessee during the proceedings of Assessment argued that the case has already been selected into scrutiny and this issue has been discussed. The AU perused the assessment order and find that the issue, in question, regarding undisclosed receipt of commission of Rs. 22,70,870/ has not been discussed in the previous assessment under. Hence it is a new information. Therefore the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Thus the grounds taken by the assessee are not tenable, as thoroughly explained above. Hence, assessee’s submission may not be entertained. Report submitted for kind perusal and necessary action please. The bench noted that the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 22,70,770/- whereas the form no. 26AS filed by the assessee exactly matches with that amount as extracted herein below: Considering that rival contention we are of the considered view that atleast for the plus and minus entry of the similar amount there is a force in the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee and therefore, that amount is directed to be deleted. But there is no discussion in the report of the ld. AO or that of the submission of the assessee on the other entries reflected in the form no. 26AS. Therefore, we set aside the matter for verifying that the 13 ITA No. 1340/JP/2024 Prashant Singh vs. ITO fact that remaining entries income is considered by the assessee or not while filling the ITR. Based on that verification ld. AO shall charge the correct income in the hands of the assessee. In terms of the above observation the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/06/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Prashant Singh, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(3), 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 (ITA No. 1340/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "