RAMESHWAR CHOPRA,AMER JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(4), JAIPUR

ITA 1447/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rameshwar Prasad Chopra, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The primary issues revolved around the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent ex-parte assessment which led to an addition of Rs. 21,10,660 as unexplained investment in immovable property. The appellant argued that the assessment was completed without adequate opportunity to present his case and that the additions made were contrary to the facts and the reasons recorded. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appellant's earlier appeal due to non-appearance, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT found that the matter had not been adequately discussed or analyzed at previous stages and thus restored the case to the AO for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23941 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: TARUN MITTAL; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 250; 271(1)(c); 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1447(A.Y. 2011-12)/JPR/2024 Rameshwar Prasad Chopra, S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Chopra, Vill. Atal Biharipura Post Devgudha, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur 303701 PAN No. ALEPC0845J ...... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 26/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 13/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 28.06.2023 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 in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO has grossly erred in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arbitrarily. 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in completing assessment ex-parte i.e. without providing adequate opportunity the assessee of being heard. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in observing that assessee has made unexplained investment of Rs. 21, 10,660/- in purchase of immovable property however has made the addition on account of long-term capital gain from sale of property of Rs. 21, 10,660/- therefore, the addition made is contrary to the reasons recorded and facts available on record and accordingly the same deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That the Ld. AO has further erred in ignoring the submissions made wherein assessee has explained the source of funds for acquisition of assets and there was no whisper about the sale of any immovable property of which addition has been made. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271F of the Income Tax Act 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arbitrarily. 6. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual was amongst the non-filers of the return u/s. 139 of the Act. The revenue was in possession of information that the assessee purchased some property situated at Khasra No. 425, 435 of village-Nangal Purohit, Patwar Halka Nangal Purohit, Tehsil Amer. In view of this a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2018. But the assessee did not file the due return of income u/s. 148 of the Act and also not complied with the notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith show cause notices issued. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 21, 10,660/-. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that 3 none appeared on behalf of the assessee as on the designated dates as per para 6 of the Appeal order. The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the appeal filed before us is time barred by 456 days. On this issue, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit duly signed and attested by the previous counsel of the assessee. 3. As per the application and affidavit mentioned (supra), the assessee is a senior citizen aged around 68 years and a resident of a remote village of Atal Biharipura and is not well versed with the taxation laws. The assessee handed over the notice to the counsel Mr. Baboo Lal; however, same remained non- complied due to communication gap and inactive number of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee came to know about the order passed on 28.06.2023, when the assessee visited his previous counsel’s office to discuss the matter on 16.11.2024. Ultimately, the assessee filed his appeal on 29.11.2024. We have considered the affidavit filed by the assessee’s previous counsel also and found that this delay in filing of appeal before us is inadvertent and reasonable cause is there in the case of the assessee, hence delay in filing of appeal before us is condoned. 4. It is further observed that the matter of the assessee was neither discussed and analysed before the AO nor before the Ld. CIT (A) and the matter was adjudicated Ex-Parte on both the stages. In view of this, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for fresh hearing in the matter after giving a fresh 4 opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the authorities below without seeking any adjournment and to be vigilant enough during the proceedings. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on the 13th Day of March 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/ Dated: 13/03/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\r / The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 4. 5. गाड\u0018 फाइल/ Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 13.03.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 13.03.2025 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 "