SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR V. WARD- 7(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

MA 23/JPR/2025

AI Insights

This case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by Mrs. Santosh Kanwar against an order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench, which mistakenly recorded an order intended for another individual with a similar name. The original order dismissed Mrs. Kanwar's appeal, believing she had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', which she had not. The Tribunal acknowledged the clerical error and recalled the order for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312745 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL PARIHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH MANTRI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 23/JP/2025 (Arising out of vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.1459/JP/2024) fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Mrs.SantoshKanwar Ravala, VPO:ItwaBopiji Tehsil: Chomu, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 7(3) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: DRUPK 2813 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Shailesh Mantri, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Act against the order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench dated 24-02-2025 praying therein to recall and rectify its order with following submissions. ‘’1 The above appeal was disposed off by the Tribunal by its order dated 24.02.2025. The appellant above named begs to present this application for rectification of certain mistake which is apparent from the record in the said order. 2. The Tribunal has disposed off this appeal in its order which reads as under: 2 M.A. NO. 23/JP/2025 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1459/JP/2024 – MRS. SANTOSH KANWAR VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR) After hearing this from both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is found that the assessee is herself interested in withdrawing the appeal by settling the dispute, under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Bench further feels that in case of another reasons the dispute is not settled in Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024, the assessee shall be at liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the Bench allows the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed by the Ld. AR of the assessee In this result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed having been withdrawn. 3. The appellant submits that the hearing was scheduled on 18.02.2025. With a request for adjournment. The Hon'ble bench discussed the matter and brief and as the order passed by the ITO was u/s 144, and the Departmental Representative has also not raised any objection for set aside the matter and remand back to AO for afresh adjudication, The Hon'ble announced that the matter will be set aside to AO. 4. It is clarified that the appellant has not opted for the \"Vivad Se Vishwas\" (VSV) Scheme. It is further submitted that one more case was fixed in SMC (the same continued Bench of the same members) in the name of Santosh Kanwar AY 2015- 16 ITA No. 937/JPR/2024. However, due to similarity in names, there appears to have been confusion, and the order intended for the other appellant was mistakenly passed in my name as on the same date, a hearing of another appellant with the same name was also conducted. 5. The Hon'ble ITAT bench has passed the order under my name, but the contents and findings pertain to the case of another individual. The order of other Santosh Kanwar for another assessment year has been mistakenly recorded in the order. The order appears to be a clerical error or a mix-up of names. This mistake has led to a misrepresentation of my case, and as a result, an incorrect order has been passed in my name. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Tribunal me be pleased to suitably amend its order to rectify the aforesaid mistake, which is apparent from the record. The appellant therefore prays that the current order is not applicable in my case and the same may be rectified. 2.1 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that on the date of last hearing i.e. on 18-02- 2025, there were two cases fixed for hearing which pertain to similar name of assessee i.e. Mrs. Santosh Kanwar. Inadvertently, in this appeal of Mrs 3 M.A. NO. 23/JP/2025 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1459/JP/2024 – MRS. SANTOSH KANWAR VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR) Santosh Kanwar, the matter was considered as Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and accordingly the action was taken. Even the ld. DR did not dispute those facts. However, now the Bench noticed that there is apparent mistake on record. Accordingly, the order passed dated 24-02-2025 is recalled for afresh adjudication by the Bench and thus the Misc. Application of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1459/JP/2024 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by not allowing the additional evidence as per Rule 46B of Income Tax Rules. 2. That the appellant objects addition of Rs.1,32,10,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 115BBE of I.T. Act, 1961. 3.2 In this case, it is noted that the AO has passed an ex-parte order for the reason that the assessee did not appear before him during the course of assessment proceedings nor filed any documents / submission. Hence the AO had no option except to make addition of Rs.1,32,10,500/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’3.2 Thus considering the above facts, the claim of assessee regarding non-payment of purchase consideration mentioned in the deed is not accepted. As the assessee has not offered any explanation and not furnished any documentary evidence regarding source of investment made in purchase of the property, the total investment of Rs.1,32,10,500/- (Rs.1,27,00,000/- Cost + Rs.5,10,500/- Registration charges) is treated as an unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1969 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of the same is made accordingly.’’ 4 M.A. NO. 23/JP/2025 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1459/JP/2024 – MRS. SANTOSH KANWAR VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR) 3.3 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide his order dated 18-10-2024 has not allowed the appeal of the assessee and thus confirmed the action of the AO. The relevant observations made by the ld. CIT(A) is also mentioned as under:- ‘’(i) no copy of sale deed has been provided by the appellant assessee to this appellate authority, (ii) No evidence / proof like panchayat decision has been provided by the appellant assessee for the meeting which was held between the family and known persons of the vaillage and (iii) no court decree regarding the family settlement which has been done, has been provided by the appellant assessee to this appellate authority etc. ‘’ 3.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he may be provided one more chance to contest the case before the AO so that he may submit all the required details before the AO and the dispute in question could be resolved. 3.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.6 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is noticed that the AO made an addition of Rs.1,32,10,500/- in the hands of the assessee as the assessee did not provide the desired documents / information as to sale of the property by the assessee before the AO. Hence the AO made an addition which has 5 M.A. NO. 23/JP/2025 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1459/JP/2024 – MRS. SANTOSH KANWAR VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR) been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). It is noticed that orders passed by the lower authorities were ex-parte. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she could not put forth her 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 but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. 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 AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO 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. 6 M.A. NO. 23/JP/2025 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1459/JP/2024 – MRS. SANTOSH KANWAR VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR) 3.0 In the result, the Misc application of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Pronounced in the Open Court on 29 / 04 /2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29 / 04 /2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Mrs. Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward –7(3), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1459/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar "