SHAKUNTI BAI,BARAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

ITA 1097/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shakunti Bai, the appellant, who contested the assessment order for the year 2017-18, which included an addition of Rs. 11,32,000 to her income, resulting in a total computed income of Rs. 15,08,980. The Learned CIT(A) upheld this assessment, leading to the appeal. The appellant's representative argued that the appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings due to non-communication of notices and that documents related to her husband's income were not considered by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal noted the appellant's non-compliance with multiple notices and adjournments but decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer rather than the CIT(A), emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775651 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: KANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Gift; Non compliance

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” 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. 1097/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shakunti Bai !, Murli ji Ke Mandir Ke Pas, Harijan Basti, Baran. Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Baran. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BQQPB0380M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Kanish Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08 /09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, On 23.04.2025, Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby upheld the assessment order dated 26.12.2019, relating to the assessment year 2017- 18. In this way, Learned CIT(A) has upheld computation of total income of Rs. 15,08,980/-, due to addition of Rs. 11,32,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1097/JPR/2025 Shakunti Bai, Baran. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be remanded as the assessee-appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings, and also because the Assessing Officer did not consider all the documents which were submitted by the assessee. Ld. AR has explained that the documents pertaining to the income of the husband of the assessee were not considered by the Assessing Officer. 4. As is available at page 2 of the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A), 5 notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), but there was no response to the first three notices dated 26.12.2020,26.10.2023 and 28.12.2023. 5. It further transpires that notices dated 05.02.2025 and 20.03.2025 were also served upon the assessee-appellant, and the assessee-appellant sought adjournment on both dates of hearing i.e. 12.02.2025 and 03.04.2025. That is how, Learned CIT(A) observed in para 3.1 that the appellant remained non compliant, despite ample opportunities, and that he had no objection, but to proceed further. That is how, the appeal was disposed off. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1097/JPR/2025 Shakunti Bai, Baran. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings because of non communication of notices by her AR. However, he further submits that all the relevant documents were submitted before Learned CIT(A), but the same could not be considered for want of appearance on behalf of the appellant. 7. In the given situation, we find that the appellant needs opportunity of being heard, even though for his non participation in the appellate proceedings, she deserves to be burdened with costs. 8. On going through the assessment order, which is somewhat illegible, we find that as per reply furnished by the assessee, she had received certain gifts; that her husband had incurred house hold expenses during the financial year 2014-15 to 2016-17, as per copy of the bank statement of her husband, that was submitted in proof of cash withdrawals from the bank. 9. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order taking into consideration all the aspects, including statement of the assessee recorded on 20.11.2018 in respect of assessment years 2016-17. However, on going through the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer did not join husband of the assessee in the proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1097/JPR/2025 Shakunti Bai, Baran. The Assessing Officer also did not discuss the plea put forth by the assessee-appellant that her husband had incurred house hold expenses during financial year 2014-15 to 2016-17, in support of which copy of bank statements of the husband of the assessee is stated to have been submitted. 10. In the given situation, instead of remanding the matter to Learned CIT(A), we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, on all the aspects as regards assessment for the year under consideration. Result 11. As a result of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Due to non compliance of notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), the assessee-appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand only). Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The assessee-appellant to produce before the Assessing Officer, receipt in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1097/JPR/2025 Shakunti Bai, Baran. imposed today, and thereupon, the Assessing Officer shall commence proceedings. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/09/2025. 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 fnukad@Dated:- 08/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shakunti Bai, Baran. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Baran. 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. 1097/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "