RAJESH KUMAWAT,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(5), JAIPUR

ITA 1064/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Rajesh Kumawat, against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Ld. CIT (A) without proper consideration of the facts or an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The assessee also challenged the additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), which were based on information from the Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited, alleging that the purchases were true and verifiable. The tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper communication regarding the appeal proceedings, leading to an ex-parte decision, and thus deemed it fit to condone the delay and restore the matter for re-adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23905 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY DHARIWAL; LD. PROXY
• Assessee Lawyers: VEDANT AGARWAL; LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 250; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1064/JPR/2024 (A. Y. 2017-18) Rajesh Kumawat, 10 Ganesh Vihar, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302017 PAN No. BPBPK 6744L ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (5), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, Ld. CIT-DR Proxy For JCIT-DR Date of hearing : 12/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 29.12.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissed the appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in default whereas no notice u/s. 250 was served on the assessee's registered mail id \"[e-mail]\". This mail id also mentioned in appeal form 35. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO grossly erred in making addition of Rs 55,57,556/- in the trading results on the basis of alleged information received from Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited without providing the said information to the assessee. 4. Additions made by Ld A.O. are also wrong and unlawful specifically in the circumstances where Ld A.O. has agreed that the purchases of assessee are true & verifiable. 5. Additions made are also wrong & unlawful as the Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited is no body to determine the profit/loss of the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO grossly erred in not providing the copy of information received from the Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited to the assessee. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. AO grossly erred in making lump sum addition of Rs 4,44,655/- on account of Salary Exp., Sale Promotion Exp., Administrative Exp., Brokerage and Temporary Furnishing and Furniture. 8. That the appellant craves his indulgence to add, amend, alters or deletes any or all of the ground of appeal at any time before decision of appeal.” In this matter there is a delay in filing of appeal by 170 Days and the same has been conveyed to the assessee by the registry. In response to that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The assessee submitted that communication by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) were sent on the e-mail id [e-mail], whereas the assessee has furnished new e-mail id for the purposes of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) through Form No. 35 as 3 [e-mail]. The assessee has produced screen shots of the notices issued on e-mail id [e-mail]. Before us the assessee has submitted the e-mail id as [e-mail]. This pattern confirms that the assessee is used to change the e-mail ids for communication. His e-mail id [e-mail] was there in the department’s database, certainly submitted by the assessee only, then [e-mail] before the Ld. CIT (A) and now a new e-mail id before us. Ultimately, the issue to be discussed here is that no notice was issued to the assessee on the email-id he furnished for the purposes of matter before Ld. CIT (A) and this resulted in an ex- parte conclusion of appeal. As there is no effective hearing took place consequentially no effective order is also there, in view of this, we deem it fit to condone the delay, as the assessee came to know about this development in the matter only after receiving communication by the previous consultant on his email-id [e-mail] w.r.t. show cause notice issued u/s. 270A of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income at Rs. 8, 74,250/- vide dated: 01.11.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutinies vide notice dated: 13.08.2018. Thereafter, dates were fixed for hearing and submission of replies/evidences on 21.10.2019, 30.10.2019 and 05.11.2019, but no response was there from the assessee on designated dates. It was also observed that during the year under consideration the assessee deposited Rs. 33,90,900/- in his Punjab National Bank A/c. Ultimately, a final show cause was issued to the assessee vide dated 28.11.2019. In response to this the assessee filed his reply, extracts of the same are there in the assessment order. Ultimately, 4 the assessment was completed after making addition of Rs. 55,57,556/- (Being difference in the results declared by the assessee and as submitted by the M/s. Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. u/s. 133(6) of the Act). In addition to this certain disallowance were also made on account of expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 4,44,655/-. The assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO as the assessee could not participate in the appeal proceedings before him, as there was no communication to him as discussed (supra). 3. In view of above, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard on the e-mail [e-mail] and the assessee is also directed to be vigilant enough this time and participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) without any excuse or seeking any adjournment. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Day of February 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 21/02/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\r/The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 5 4. िवभागीय \u000eितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड\u001e फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 21.02.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 21.02.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order "