RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY ,MALPURA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TONK, TONK

ITA 1282/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Raja Ram Choudhary against the order of the ld. CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs.18,80,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds of non-compliance and lack of submission from the assessee. However, due to the death of the assessee's counsel and subsequent lack of communication, the appeal was filed late by 724 days. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jaipur condoned the delay and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need to decide the case on merits and ensure that the assessee's rights are not overlooked.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469905 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY; VH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV HARSH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation; Reason to believe; Time period of passing order
• Section: 250

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. 1282/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Shri Raja Ram Choudhary M/s. Choudhary Construction Rindlya Bujurg, Malpura, Tonk – 304 502 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward- Tonk Tonk LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AQGPC 4037 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/01/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04 /02/2025 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 25-08-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the addition made by the AO. 2 ITA NO. 1282/JP/2024 SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in issuing notice u/s 148of the Act, 1961 which issued without any reason to believe, is without any application of mind and the entire proceedings of reassessment deserves to be set aside. 3. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in making the addition u/s 68of the Act of Rs.18,80,000/ which is unjustified, bad in law and deserved to be deleted’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 724 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 24-12-2024 for condonation of delay praying therein as under:- ‘1. That the ld.CIT(A) passed his order on 25-08-2022 which was served on the email id [e-mail] which belongs to the counsel of the assessee appellant on 26-08-2024. 2. That Counsel of the assessee Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain was expired on 30-05-2021 and communication of order dated 26- 08-2021 was not in the knowledge of the assessee appellant. Copy of death certificate of the counsel is enclosed herewith. 3. That assessee one day himself verify the portal and enquired regarding the status of the appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A) and there he finds that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte order on 26-08-2024. 4. That as soon as the passing the order came to the knowledge of the assesseee, the assessee appellant with the help of his counsel has filed this appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 17-10-2024 with delay of 724 days. 3 ITA NO. 1282/JP/2024 SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 5. That filing of the appeal subsequent to the expiry of limitation period as provided under the Act is because of death of earlier counsel of the assessee and which is beyond the control of the assessee appellant. 6. An affidavit duly sworn in this regard is also enclosed herewith. With this back ground, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lienent and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional purely because of unavoidable circumstances. That in these circumstances, we request your honour to kindly condone the delay and oblige.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the delay of 724 days is an inordinate delay but the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and gone through the submissions of the ld.AR of the assessee as well as affidavit of the assessee as the earlier counsel of the assessee Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain passed away on 30-05-2021 whereas the ld CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 25-08-2022 for which the assessee had no knowledge and thus he could not file the appeal in time before this Bench. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in late filing the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned. 4 ITA NO. 1282/JP/2024 SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding therein following narration. ‘’4.3 During the appellate proceedings, various notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued through ITBA Portal to the appellant vide dated 20-01-2021, 04-08-2022, 11-08-2022 and 17-08- 2022. It is noted that the appellant was given several opportunities to present its appeal by way of written submission and supporting documentary evidences. However, the assessee failed to comply with any reply/ submission. The appellant has not made any written submission and has only furnished copy of the assessment order, grounds of appeal and statement of facts in Form No.35. In view of the above, the appeal is decided on the basis of facts on material available on record. 4.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided many opportunities as enumerated above. However, the appellant has remained noncompliant. No material fact has been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal to rebut the findings of the AO. The appellant in spite of being given ample opportunities during appellate proceedings, failed to offer any explanation/ supporting documents. I have carefully considered the assessment order and I find that the addition has been made correctly made by the AO. In view of the above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Hence, addition of Rs.18,80,000/- is confirmed. Accordingly, al the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that one more chance may be given to the assessee to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) 5 ITA NO. 1282/JP/2024 SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK and to submit the documents to counter the order passed by the AO before the ld. CIT(A). 3.3 On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order holding that no material fact had been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal or to rebut the findings of the AO by the assessee. It may be noted that since the ld.Counsel of the assessee passed away on 30-05-2021, therefore he could not pursue the appeal of the assessee and thus could not advance the documents to safeguard the interest of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) . 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 various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue by the ld. CIT(A). . 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 6 ITA NO. 1282/JP/2024 SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 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 AO independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 04 /02/2025. 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:- 04/02/2025 *Mishra * vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Raja Ram Choudhary, Tonk. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- Tonk. 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. 1282/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "