RATAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

ITA 336/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ratan Lal Yadav, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his earlier appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order had added Rs. 1,62,86,000 to his income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained sources of a similar amount deposited in his bank account. The appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rendered infructuous due to ongoing proceedings under section 148A(d) for the same assessment year. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the figures mentioned in the CIT(A)'s order but did not address these due to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774119 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: NAMAN MALOO; RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 336/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ratan Lal Yadav Sarpanch Ji Ki dhani, Shikarpur, Sanganer, Jaipur. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPY6831C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, C.A. & Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 10 /09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Present appeal came to be presented on 03.03.2025, challenging order dated 17.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging assessment order dated 29.03.22022, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, came to be dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 336/JPR/2025 Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur. Vide assessment order dated 29.03.2022, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,62,86,000/-, on account of addition of the same amount u/s 69A of the Act, in view of the observations that the assessee had failed to explain source of the said amount deposited in his bank account. 2. Since this Registry raised a deficiency notice that the appeal is barred by limitation, the assessee subsequently filed an application seeking condonation of delay. 3. The appeal is stated to have been filed after delay of 3 days. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant came to know of the impugned order on 03.03.2025. 4. The application seeking condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the appellant-applicant. Even though the applicant-appellant has alleged that email ID available in the record of the Income Tax Department belongs to some other person, it was for the applicant to specify as to whom the said email ID belongs, the reason being that Form 35 is submitted by the assessee therein specifying, as to at which address, notices/communication are to be communicated by the department. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 336/JPR/2025 Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur. 5. Be that as it may, when even Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the condonation of delay, the appeal having been filed only 3 days after the prescribed period, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. 6. When the appeal has been taken up for hearing on merits, it has been brought to our notice by Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department that the department has commenced proceedings against the assessee u/s 148A(d) of the Act, and that the appellant has been participating in the said pending proceedings for same assessment year. 7. In the given situation, Ld. AR for the appellant has candidly submitted that this appeal may be dismissed as having become infructuous, in view of the commencement of the proceedings by the department u/s 148A(d). Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the said submission. Result 8. In view of the above submission that the department has initiated proceedings against the assessee u/s 148A(d) relating to the same Assessment Year , this appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. 9. While parting with the order, we may mention here that as rightly pointed out by Ld. DR for the department and also Ld. AR for the appellant, Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 336/JPR/2025 Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur. in para 4.5 of the impugned order, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, the figure of total credit in the account of the appellant has been typed as Rs. 23,19,32,842/-, and the figure that the Assessing Officer quantified the commission at Rs. 46,38,657/- calculating the same @ 2% of the above said amount of total credits, are incorrect, as the only addition made by the Assessing Officer, as noticed in the beginning, was to the tune of Rs. 1,62,86,000/-, due to unexplained cash deposit, while resorting to the provisions of section 69A of the Act. This is certainly a serious matter. Every fact recorded in any order must be thoroughly gone through and in consonance with the record, before the same is pronounced or put in the public domain, so as to avoid difficulties in the adjudication of the real issue involved. Copy of this order be sent to the office of Learned CIT(A), NFAC for information. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 336/JPR/2025 Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur. fnukad@Dated:- 10/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Ratan lal Yadav, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 336/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "