SANDEEP NATANI,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

ITA 884/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sandeep Natani, who appealed against the assessment order dated 21.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,31,78,470 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, due to substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices during both the assessment and appeal proceedings but decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer to ensure the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717544 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: TARUN MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 148

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 aJh 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. 884/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sandeep Natani 908, Natanio Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPN8471F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), while challenging assessment order dated 21.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2015-16. Said appeal came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, on 19.03.2025, thereby sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 884/JPR/2025 Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur 2. As per assessment order dated 21.03.2022, an addition of Rs. 1,31,78,470/- was made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as the assessee was found to have made huge cash deposit- amounting to Rs. 14,99,000/- in his bank account with Axis Bank Limited and Rs. 1,16,79,470/-, in his bank account with Indusland Bank Limited. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. Contentions 4. The only submission made by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the assessee-appellant could not comply with the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, and that in order to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer. 5. The matter is sought to be remanded to the Assessing Officer, as the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as well. In support of his submission, Ld. AR has submitted today before us, affidavit of the assessee-appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 884/JPR/2025 Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur 6. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the notices issued for the purposes of assessment proceedings were also physically served upon the assessee , but even then he chose not to comply with the notices. As regards non compliance before Learned CIT(A), Ld. DR has submitted that two notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), but the assessee remained non compliant. Learned DR has no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer, but, according to her, a trend has developed not to appear before the Assessing Officer and/or the CIT(A), and ultimately, to make a request before the Tribunal for remand of the matter, as a result whereof precious time of the department is wasted. Discussion 7. So far as assessment proceedings are concerned, in his affidavit, the assessee has testified that the statutory notices were issued by the department on the email ID of his previous counsel, but, said counsel did not inform him, and as such, he was prevented from participating in the assessment proceedings. In this regard, when we refer to the assessment order, in para 4, the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that firstly the assessee did not comply with notice u/s 148 of the Act; and then he failed to reply the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 884/JPR/2025 Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur detailed questionnaire issued to him by way of two notices dated 15.12.2021 and 17.01.2022, even though said statutory notices were “physically served” upon the assessee. It is noteworthy that in the affidavit, the assessee has not denied factum of personal service of the notices upon him, through designated verification unit of the department. In para no. 1 and 2 of the affidavit, the assessee has put forth the factum of non communication of notices to him by his previous counsel, who had admittedly received the same on his email ID. In this regard, we find that the assessee has failed to explain non compliance before the Assessing Officer after “personal service” of notices upon him as well. As regards non communication of the receipt of notices from the office of Assessing Officer, the appellant has not submitted affidavit of the concerned counsel to substantiate his claim. 8. As regards the appeal proceedings, Ld. AR for the appellant has admitted that two notices dated 30.10.2023 and 10.12.2024 were served upon the assessee-appellant, but submitted that due to personal reasons and circumstances, beyond the control, he could not reply said notices. However, in the affidavit, the assessee-appellant has not specified any personal reason and circumstances, which is said to have prevented Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 884/JPR/2025 Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur him from participating in the appeal proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was diligently perusing the matter. 9. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has requested for an opportunity of being heard so that he is able to comply with all the directions issued by the Assessing Officer, for the purpose of effective adjudication of the issue involved i.e. cash deposit in his bank accounts. 10. In the given facts and circumstances, having regard to the nature of the issue involved i.e. the unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer, as even Ld. DR for the department has no objection, in the given situation, for its remand to the Assessing Officer. We have been informed that for non compliance with the notices issued by the AO, proceedings were conducted u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, vide order dated 15.09.2022, and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. In the given situation, as regards non compliance of the notices issued by Learned CIT(A) , we deem it a fit case to burden the assessee with costs of Rs.2,000/- only. Result 11. In view of the discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 884/JPR/2025 Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur the Learned CIT(A), the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard, in accordance with law. Assessee to deposit costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and to submit the receipt before the Assessing Officer 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 13/08/2025. 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 fnukad@Dated:- 13/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Sandeep Natani, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), 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. 884/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "