Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 17092 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Judgement Text
" \nvk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, \nJAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR \n(Virtual Hearing) \n \nMk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k \n BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM \n \nvk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos.07/JP/2025,06/JP/2025,1554, 1560 & 1561 /JP/2024 \nfu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 \n(Quantum Appeals) \nShri Shailendra Garg \nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, \nGanganagar – 335 027 \ncuke \nVs. \nThe ACIT \n Circle-6 \nJaipur \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \nvk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos.08/JP/2025, 1555, 1559& 1563 /JP/2024 \nfu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2011-12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 \n(Penalty Appeals u/s 271(1)© of the Act) \n \nShri Shailendra Garg \nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, \nGanganagar – 335 027 \ncuke \nVs. \nThe ACIT \n Circle-6 \nJaipur \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \nvk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos. 1556 & 1562 /JP/2024 \nfu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 \n(Penalty Appeals u/s 271F of the Act) \n \nShri Shailendra Garg \nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, \nGanganagar – 335 027 \ncuke \nVs. \nThe ACIT \n Circle-6 \nJaipur \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \n \n\n2 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n \nvk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos. 1557 & 1564 /JP/2024 \nfu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 \n(Penalty Appeals u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act) \n \nShri Shailendra Garg \nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, \nGanganagar – 335 027 \ncuke \nVs. \nThe ACIT \n Circle-6 \nJaipur \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \n \nvk;djvihyla-@ITA Nos. 1558 /JP/2024 \nfu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2015-16 \n(Penalty Appeal u/s 271B of the Act) \n \nShri Shailendra Garg \nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, \nGanganagar – 335 027 \ncuke \nVs. \nThe ACIT \n Circle-6 \nJaipur \nLFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \n \nizR;FkhZ@Respondent \n \nfu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA \njktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR \n \n \n \n \nlquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing \n \n: 18/02/2025 \nmn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 07/03/2025 \n \nvkns'k@ORDER \n \nPER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM \n \nThese 14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different \norders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- \n \n\n3 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n \n \nITA Nos. \nA.Y. \nCIT(A) order dated \nDecision by CIT(A) \nDelay made in \nfiling the appeal \nbefore ITAT \n7/JP/2025 \n2011-12 \nCIT(A)-2, \nJaipur \ndated \n22-03-2016 \nUpheld the disallowance \nof \nRs.10,02,378/- \nand \nconfirmed \nthe \ndisallowance to the extent \nof 10% as made by the \nAO relating to telephone \nexpenses and business \npromotion expenses \nDismissed \nthe \ngrounds \nand \nmentioned ad at Para \n7.3 \n…that \n‘’the \nassessee \nis \nfacing \ncertain \nlegal \nproceedings and is in \njudicial \ncustody. \nFurther no justification \nfor \nthese \namounts \nhave been produced \nin \nthe \npresent \nproceedings also \n3140 days \n6/JP/2025 \n2012-13 \nCIT(A)-2, \nJaipur \ndated \n16-03-2017 \npassed \nan \nex-parte \norder \nholding \nthat ‘’I have no alternative \nthough \nto \ndecide \nthe \nappeal on the basis of \ndocuments on record \n \n \n \n \nPartly \nallowed \nand \nconfirmed the addition \nof \nRs.79,97,113/-u/s \n2(22)(e), professional \ncharges \nRs.73,000/- \nu/s 40(a)(ia), \nRs.7,44,333/- towards \nuntraced receipt lying \nin suspense a/c of \nMahka \nBharat \n, \nRs.s24,12,930/-, sales \ntax \ndemand \nof \nRs.4,078, \ntelephone \nexpenses \n24,535, \nbusiness \npromotion \nexpenses Rs.15,015 & \nvehicle \n \nexpenses \nRs.1,47,989/- \nand \ndisallowance \nof \ndeduction \nu/s \n80C \nRs.1.00 lac \n \n \n2775 days \n1554/JP/24 \n2014-15 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 31-08-\n2023 \ncondonation \nof \ndelay of 727 days not \nallowed \nand \ndismissed \nthe appeal \nDismissed the appeal \nholding that delay in \nfiling of appeal is not \ncondoned, \nappeal \ndismissed \n426 days \n1560/JP/2024 \n2015-16 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 30-05-\n2024 \ncondonation \nof \ndelay of 551 days not \nallowed \nand \ndismissed \nthe appeal \nDismissed the appeal \nholding that delay in \nfiling of appeal is not \ncondoned, \nappeal \ndismissed \n152 days \n1561/JP/2024 \n2016-17 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 30-05-\nDismissed the appeal \n1561 days \n\n4 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n2024 \ncondonation \nof \ndelay of 541 days not \nallowed \nand \ndismissed \nthe appeal \nholding that delay in \nfiling of appeal is not \ncondoned, \nappeal \ndismissed \n8/JP/2025 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)© \n2011-12 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 27-09-\n2023, Ex-parte order in \nspite \nof \nproviding \nsufficient opportunities to \nthe assessee to explain \nthe issue \nDismissed the appeal \nconfirming the action \nof the AO who invoked \nprovision of section \n271(1)©of the Act \n401 days \n1555/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)© \n2014-15 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-03-\n2024, Ex-parte order in \nspite \nof \nproviding \nsufficient opportunities to \nthe assessee to explain \nthe issue \nDismissed the appeal \nconfirming the action \nof the AO who invoked \nprovision of section \n271(1)©of the Act and \ndelay \nof \n610 \nnot \ncondoned \n213 days \n1559/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)© \n2015-16 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 30-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 377 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n1563/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)© \n2016-17 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 30-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 376 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n1556/JP/2024 \nAppeal u/s 271F \n2015-16 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 382 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n1562/JP/2024 \nAppeal u/s 271F \n2016-17 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 382 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n1557/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)(b) \n2015-16 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 382 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n1564/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)(b) \n2016-17 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 386 days in not \n152 days \n\n5 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n1558/JP/2024 \nAppeal \nu/s \n271(1)(b) \n2015-16 \nNFAC Delhi, dated 28-05-\n2024, \nEx-parte \norder \nholding that the appellant \nfailed \nto \nfurnish \ndocumentary evidence in \nsupport of his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal \nDismissed the appeal \non the ground of delay \nof 376 days in not \ntimely filing the appeal \nand \ndelay \nnot \ncondoned \n152 days \n \n2.1 \nIt is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR \nof the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals \nbefore the Bench with the prayer that the delay so made in filing the appeal \nmay be condoned for the reason that the assessee had been engaged in \nfamily disputes and ongoing litigation including judicial custody and other \ncivil / criminal litigations. The assessee is the sole bread earner for this \nfamily and was burdened with the responsibility of managing his affairs and \nbusinesses after the demise of his father on 4-10-2008. The assessee was \nin jail for a substantial period from 2015-2022. It is also submitted that on \naccount of his bail condition imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of \nIndia, he was outside the state of Rajasthan for a couple of years. The \nassessee was fully dependent upon the advice of the ld AR – M/s. Singhal \nJain & Co. to resolve all tax matters and compliance thereof and thus the \ndelay took place in filing the appeals due to negligence and lack of advice \nby the advice of the earlier ld. AR. Thus he prayed to condone the delay so \n\n6 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nmade in the above mentioned appeals (supra). It is worthwhile to mention \nthat the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in each \nappeals, however, for the sake of convenience, we reproduce the \napplication for condonation of the assessee in ITA No.7/JP/2024 for the \nassessment year 2011-12. \nAPPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL \n \nMOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:- \n \nThe humble appellant/assessee, Shri Shailendra Garg, submits the captioned \napplication as under:- \n \n1. \nThat the appellant has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 16-03-\n2017 (became aware on 25-09-2024), passed by the Ld. CIT(A), whereby the \nappeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act against the assessment order \ndated 02-03-2015 was dismissed. \n2. \nThat the appellant submits that there has been a delay of 35 days in filing the \npresent appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The appellant submits, as explained \nin detail hereinafter, Assessee has been diligent in pursuing his case and the delay \nis only bonafide. For the reasons mentioned in this application, the Assessee \nsubmits the Assessee has sufficient reason for the delay in approaching this \nHon’ble Tribunal. \n3. \nThat the assessee submits that the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal is due to the \nfact that the impugned order was never served on the asseseee. The impugned \norder is dated 16.03.2017, during that time, the assessee was in judicial custody in \nconnection with the FIR No. 422/2014 PS CBI/ACD filed for offences u/s 13(2) \nread with section 13(1)(C)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120B, \n420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. \n4. \nThat the assessee submits that during 2015-2017,the assessee was in judicial \ncustody in the year 2015 in connection with FIR No.422/2014 and was granted bail \nfor the FIR No. 422/2014 by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-05-2017 \nwith the condition that assessee could not enter the state of Rajasthan. \n5. \nThat during the aforesaid period, the assessee was re-arrested in connection with \na different FIR No.172/2017 PS motidungri on 24-05-2019 and was in judicial \ncustody from 25-05-2019 till the grant of the bail by the Hon’ble High Court on 20-\n05-2020. \n6. \nThat the Assessee submits that from 2017-2022, the Assessee was out of the \nstate of Rajasthan on account of the condition imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt of India vide its order dated 02-05-2017 and the said condition was lifted in \n\n7 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nNovember’2022 vide order dated 09-11-2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt. \n7. \nThat the assessee from 2020-2022, was also prevented on account of the COVID-\n19 pandemic to approach this Hon’ble Authority. \n \n8. \nThat the Assessee realising his responsibility and diligence has appointed \nprofessionals from time to time to manage his tax matter/compliances. When the \nassessee was in Delhi (on account of the condition imposed by the Hon’ble \nSupreme Court), the assessee engaged one Jyotish Singh CA for carrying out his \ntax compliances. When his CA did not act professionally, especially when the \nperiod he was in the outside state of Rajasthan, the assessee filed a complaint \nagainstthe Delhi police on 13-01-2021 against the CA. Thereafter, he engaged M/s \nSinghal & Co in February 2021. The aforesaid facts were in knowledge of his AR \ndespite thereof his authorised person did not act diligently and communicated \nthese facts to CIT(A), nor to the assessee about the steps to be taken against the \nimpugned order. The entire file including certified copy of the assessment order \n(which was available with erstwhile AR) was handed over to M/s Singhal & Co in \n2021 however, assessee was not aware that no action on the same has been \ntaken so far. \n9. \nHowever, on receipt of a notice dated 25-09-2024 from Tax Recovery Officer, for \ndeposit of outstanding demand and requisition with respect to pending appeals \nagainst the mentioned demand, the assessee contacted his authorised \nrepresentative in relation to these outstanding demands.Only at this point of time, \nthe authorized representative informed the assessee that the appeals filed by the \nassessee before CIT(A) whichhave been dismissed no appeals thereof has been \nfiled by him.Realizing that the authorized representative has been acting \nnegligently, and has failed to sufficiently and effectively represent the interests of \nthe assessee, the assessee immediately requested for handover of all the records \nfrom the authorized representative and initiated the process to change his \nauthorized representative. \n10. \nThat on 09-12-2024, the authorized representative (CA M/s Singhal &Co)handed \nover the entire records to the assessee, and immediately thereafter, the assessee \ncontacted the office of the present authorised representative Shri Prashant Daga, \nAdvocate for adequate actions to be taken in relation to the pending tax \nassessments. Despite voluminous and scattered recordson account of multiple \nongoing litigations, the present authorized representative has filed the present \nappeal within reasonable period from the date of receipt of documents. \n11. \nIn view of the above, it is evident that the delay in filing the present appeal is \nattributable to the erstwhile authorized representative of the assessee, and not to \nthe assessee itself. In fact, the assessee has acted prudently and proactively in \nchanging his authorized representative and ensuring that the required actions are \ntaken at the earliest. \n12. \nThat the assessee submits that the assesseehas been going through the bad \nphase due to family disputes and ongoing litigation including judicial custody and \nother civil /criminal litigation. The assessee is the sole bread earner for his family \n\n8 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nand was burdened with the responsibility of managing his affairs and businesses \nafter the sad demise of his father on 04-10-2008. Thereafter, the assessee has \nbeen engaged in several litigations including criminal prosecutions, and retention \nin judicial custody, and jail time for a substantial period from 2015-2022. \nAdditionally, on account of his bail condition imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt of India, he was outside the state of Rajasthan for a couple of years. The \ndetails of the litigation pending, faced by the assessee are being separately \nproduced and form part of the paper book of the appeal. Therefore, the assessee \nis highly dependent on his authorised representative and chartered accountant for \nnecessary advice and prompt action. \n13. \nBeing unfamiliar with the tax laws, the assessee appointed experts or AR M/s \nSinghal & Coto resolve all tax compliance-related issues. Thus, during the relevant \nperiod, the assessee having engaged the AR/experts/professionals was solely \ndependent on their advice and suggestions for resolving the tax compliances. \nThus, delay due to negligence or delay or lack of proper advice by the authorised \nperson/CA is liable to be condoned and the assessee cannot be made to suffer on \naccount of the same; \n14. \nThe Assessee submits that the deficiency or delay or negligence on the part of the \nauthorised representative in bringing into Assessee’s notice the fact that the \nCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, and also on ground of lack of advice from the \nauthorized representative about filing of appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The \nassessee had appointed the authorized representative with the task of carrying out \nall his regulatory and taxation compliances (including filing of appropriate replies / \nappeals in relation to tax assessments), and therefore, assessee was under \nreasonable presumption that his tax matters are duly taken care of. \n15. \nThat the assessee submits that in the event the delay is not condoned the \nassessee would suffer substantial injustice and would be deprived of the \nopportunity to contest the case on merits, inter alia due to the negligence of his \nauthorised representative. \n16. \nThe delay in filing the present appeal is attributed to the gross negligence of the \nARs, who failed to represent the assessee diligently and did not communicate the \nimpugned order promptly. Despite receiving notices from the department, the ARs \nneither supplied the necessary documents nor responded to the notices, leaving \nthe assessee uninformed and disadvantaged. \n17. \nIt is a settled proposition of law that the disputes should be decided on merits and \ncourt should take a lenient view on the matter of condonation of delay provided the \nexplanation and reasons for delay are bonafide and not merely a device to cover \nan ulterior purpose or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. While \nconstruing the sufficient cause, a liberal view should be taken, and the court \nshould lean in favour of the party as explaining the reasons for delay as bonafide. \nWhenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each \nother, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. \n18. \nThat the assessee was passing through a bad phase for such a long time on the \nbusiness front as well as on the family front and facing various problems even with \nthe CA and has been fighting to set things right in his life, the assessee shall be \ngranted an opportunity to present its case on the merits. \n\n9 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n19. \nIn addition to the above, the assessee in the present case has carried out a best \njudgment assessment and the major addition pertains to an amount which \ninherently is not taxable, and which was never even received by the assessee. \n20. \nThe application is bona fide and in the interest of justice \nPRAYER \nIn view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that \nthis Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present \nappeal and admit the appeal for hearing and decide the same on merits in the \ninterest of justice and equity. \nAny other/further orders which this Hon’ble Tribunal seems just and proper \nmay also be passed in favour of the Assessee/appellant in the interest of justice, \nequity and good conscience. \n \n2.2 \nTo this effect, the assessee has filed affidavits in respect of each \nappeal deposing the contents mentioned in the application for condonation \nof delay. \n \n2.3 \nIt is also pertinent to mention here that in respect of each appeals the \nassessee has filed the grounds of appeal which are mentioned at Form 36 \nof the appeals and they are not required to repeat it. \n2.4 \nOn the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A). \n2.5 \nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available \non record. We take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the \nassessment year 2011-12 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 7.3 has observed \nas under:- \n‘’7.3. I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the \nsubmissions of the appellant. An amount of Rs. 10,02,378/- was appearing in the \n\n10 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nbalance sheet of M/s Garment Craft as liability payable under suspense account. \nThe appellant explained these as untraced receipts/payment outstanding for \nadjustment in appropriate accounting heads kept in suspense liability and grouped \nunder the outstanding liabilities as shown in Schedule-6 of the audited balance \nsheet. Since, the assessee could not furnish details of these amounts even during \nassessment proceedings by when substantial time had elapsed after the audit and \ncould not even give details as to whether these liabilities actually existed, treated \nthe same as unexplained credit and added the same under section 68 of the I.T. \nAct, 1961. \nIn the proceedings before me, the Authorized Representative submitted that the \nassessee is facing certain legal proceedings and is in judicial custody. Even in the \npresent proceedings no details of these receipts are furnished. The appellant \nsubmitted that Assessing Officer has not made proper investigation and added the \namounts. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, Assessing \nOfficer possibly cannot conduct any enquiries or investigations. Further, no \njustification for these amounts have been produced in the present proceedings \nalso. In view of the discussion as above, the addition made under section 68 of the \nI.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ \n \n \nWe further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment \nyear 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- \n‘’13.2 \n I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per \nassessment order assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80C of Rs.1,00,000/- on \naccount of LIC premium paid by him. The assessee was asked to furnish \nnecessary evidence in support of paid of LIC Premium. The assessee has not \nfurnished required documents during the assessment proceedings before the \nassessing officer nor during appellate proceedings before me, therefore, the \naddition made by the assessing officer, is confirmed. This ground of appeal is \ndismissed.’’ \n \nWe further take reference of the appeals of the assessee for the \nassessment year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 wherein the ld. CIT(A) \nhas dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of not condoning \nthe delay by observing as under: \n\n11 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n Assessment year 2014-15 \n \n‘’5.7 In view of facts discussed above, in the present case, appellant has failed to \nprove beyond doubt that it had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. \nAppellant failed to produce documentary evidence substantiating his claim. Simply \nmaking a statement that appellant came to know about the assessment order only \nafter receiving information from department in his case, cannot constitute a \nsufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delay of 727 days for the appeal \nunder consideration. Under these circumstances, as the appeal is filed beyond the \ndue date prescribed under law and sufficiency of the reasons for the delay are not \nestablished. Therefore delay in filing of appeal is not condoned In the result, \nappeal stands dismissed. \n \nIn view of the fact thatappeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of \npetition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed. \n \n6. \nIn the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ \n \n Assessment year – 2015-16 \n \n6. In view of facts discussed above, in the present case, appellant has failed to \nprove beyond doubt that it had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. \nAppellant failed to produce documentary evidence substantiating his claim for \ndelay in filing the appeal. Simply making a claim that CA did not communicate him \nabout the proceeding. cannot constitute a sufficient or good reason for condoning \ninordinate delay of 551 days for the appeal under consideration. Under these \ncircumstances, as the appeal is filed beyond the due date prescribed under law \nand sufficiency of the reasons for the delay are not established. Therefore, delay in \nfiling of appeal is not condoned. In the result, appeal stands dismissed \n \n7 In view of the fact that appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of \npetition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed. \n \n8. In result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ \n \n \nAssessment year – 2016-17 \n \n‘’6. In the present case, appellant has failed to prove beyond doubt that it had \nacted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. Appellant failed to furnish \ndocumentary evidence in support of his claim for delay in filing the appeal. Simply \nmaking a claim that appellant was facing certain legal proceedings, cannot \nconstitute a sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delay of 541 days in \nfiling the appeal under consideration. Under these circumstances, as the appeal is \nfiled beyond the due date prescribed under law and sufficiency of the reasons for \nthe delay are not established. Therefore, delay in filing of appeal is not condoned \nin the result, appeal stands dismissed. \n\n12 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \n \n7. In view of the fact that appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of \npetition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed. \n \n8. In result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ \n \nFrom the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench noticed that the \nassessee during the year 2015—2017 was in judicial custody in \nconnection with FIR No 422/2014 and was granted bail for the FIR No. \n422/2014 by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-05-2017 with the \ncondition that assessee could not entre the state of Rajasthan. Further the \nassessee was re-arrested in connection with different FIR No. 172/2017 \nPolice Station Motidungri on 24-05-2019 and was in judicial custody from \n25-05-2019 till the grant of the bail by the Hon’ble High Court on 20-05-\n2020. It is also submitted by the assessee that from 2017-2022, he was out \nof the State of Rajasthan on account of the condition imposed by the \nHon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 02-05-2017 and the \nsaid condition was lifted in November 2022 vide order dated 09-11-2022 \npassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The assessee submitted that he \nwas prevented by COVID 19 pandemic to approach the Court during the \nyear 2020-2022. The grievance of the assessee was that the impugned \norder 16-03-2017 was not received during that time as he was in Judicial \ncustody in connection with the FIR No. 42/2014 PS CBI/ACD filed for \n\n13 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \noffences u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1)©(D) of the Prevention of \nCorruption Act, 1988,and 120B,420, 467, 468 and 471IPC. He further \nsubmitted that there was a lack of advice of his counsel M/s. Singhal Jain \n&Co. who engaged to solve all the tax matters and for this reason the \nassessee had to suffer a lot. The Bench can understand the agony when \none has to suffer for one reason and the others. Since the assessee was in \nJail/ Police Custody or out of Rajasthan as narrated above, therefore, it \nwas difficult for him to look into the matters relating to income tax and \npursue the appeals before the Income Tax Authorities to substantiate his \ncase. Hence, in this view of the matter, the delays made by the assessee in \nfiling the appeals are condoned. Further, it is also noteworthy to mention \nthat in quantum appeals the assessee was not in a position to file the reply \nto the queries of the AO during assessment proceedings, these appeals \nare restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh but by providing \nadequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also taking into \nconsideration the mental agony of the assessee.Thus, the quantum \nappeals of the assessee are restored to the file of the AO for afresh \nadjudication. \n2.6 \nBe that as it may since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-\nparte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not \n\n14 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \nput forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear \nbefore the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that \nvarious opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the \nissuebut the assessee could not pursue the cases for the reasons \nmentioned hereinabove. However, we are of the view that lis between the \nparties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be \nscuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. \nHence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by \nproviding one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not \nseek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during \nthe course of proceedings. Thus the appeals of the assessee are allowed \nfor statistical purposes. \n2.7 \nBefore parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore \nthe matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having \nany reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be \nadjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. \n3.1 \nAs regards the penalty appeals of the assessee relating to Section \n271(1) ©, 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271B of the Act, the Bench feels that since \nthe quantum appeals of the assessee have been restored to the file of the \nAO for afresh adjudication, therefore the fate of penalty appeals will be in \n\n15 \n \n \n \n \n \nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER \n \n SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR \naccordance with decision of quantum appeals. Hence, the same is restored \nto the file of AO to act in accordance with law. \n4.0. In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical \npurposes as indicated hereinabove. \n \nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 07 -03-2025. \nSd/- \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ \n \n \n \n ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ \n \n (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) \n \n \n (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) \nU;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member \n \nys[kklnL;@Accountant Member \nTk;iqj@Jaipur \n \n \nfnukad@Dated:- 07/03/2025 \n \n*Mishra \nvkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: \n1. \nThe Appellant-Shri Shailendra Garg, Jaipur \n2. \nizR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur \n3. \nvk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT \n4. \nfoHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur \n5. \nxkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 7/JP/2025) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nvkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nlgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar \n \n"
Mehul