PRASHANT TAK,JAIPUR V. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 70/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Prashant Tak, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), Aurangabad, which dismissed his appeal against the assessment order for the year 2009-10. The assessment order included additions for shifting of losses and unexplained expenditure. The appellant failed to appear despite multiple notices, leading to the dismissal of his appeal without merit discussion. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits despite the appellant's non-compliance and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792898 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained expenditure; Non compliance

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 70/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prashant Tak 53, Laxman Marg, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. ACFPT9612A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :24/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 25/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Assessee-appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal, feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 19.11.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), Aurangabad, whereby his appeal against assessment order dated 19.12.2016, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, has been dismissed. 2. Vide assessment order dated 19.12.2016, the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e. of Rs. 6,89,055/- on account of shifting of losses Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 70/JPR/2025 Prashant Tak, Jaipur and another addition of Rs. 20,672/-, on account of unexplained expenditure. 3. It may be mentioned here that present appeal was presented on 20.01.2025. On 12.08.2025, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the interest of justice, the appeal was adjourned to 26.08.2025. But, even on the next date i.e. 26.08.2025 none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the interest of justice, the appeal was again adjourned for today. However, none appeared on behalf of the appellant even today despite wait. 4. In the given situation, we have heard only Ld. DR for the department present before us. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that as per impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) despite issuance of 6 notices appellant remained non compliant, and as such, Learned CIT(A) had no option, but to proceed and order for dismissal of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 70/JPR/2025 Prashant Tak, Jaipur As per impugned order, 6 notices u/s 250 of the Act, were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), but there was no response from the side of the appellant. 5. As per ground of appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, Learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order without adjudication on merits of the case. To appreciate this contention, we have gone through the impugned order. As is available from the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits. In other words, the same has been decided without any discussion on the issue involved i.e. of clint code modification. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had misused facility of client code modification to shift losses of others. No doubt, the appellant remained non compliant, even despite service of 6 notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), Learned CIT(A) was still required to decide the appeal on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 70/JPR/2025 Prashant Tak, Jaipur Having regard to the nature of the issue involved, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal on merits, after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Result 6. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee-appellant. 7. As regards non compliance of the appellant despite 6 notices issued by Learned CIT(A), we burden the assessee-appellant with costs of Rs. 3000/-. The appellant to deposit the said amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2025. 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:- 25/09/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 70/JPR/2025 Prashant Tak, Jaipur *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Prashant Tak, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-3, 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. 70/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "