SHREE JEE TIMBERS,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 679/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shree Jee Timbers appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed additions made by the AO under sections 68 and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained credits and sundry creditors. The ITAT noted procedural lapses in the notice delivery process, which deprived the assessee of a fair hearing. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, ensuring the assessee is given another opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711879 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68

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 vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 679/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2022-23 M/s. Shree Jee Timbers B-33, Opposite 200 Ft. Bypass, Ayodhya Nagar, Chitrakoot, Jaipur – 302 021 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-1 (1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQFS 6816 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 21/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 25/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28-02-2025 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment years 2022-23 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 1. The impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) RWS 1448 dated 21.03.2024 as well as the notice issued are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 679/JPR/2025 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 1. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the in passing the Ex-party order, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law which are bad in law, invalid, llegal and on facts of the case, also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the order so passed by the Id. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be deleted. 2. Rs.28,92,134/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.28.92.134/-made by the Id. AO on account of alleged unexplained credit or unsecured loan u/s 68. The Ld. AO and Id. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the id. AO is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full 3. Rs.22.02.129/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.22.02.129/-on account of alleged unexplained sundry creditors u/s 68. The Ld. AO and Id... CIT(A) also erred in not considering the vital facts and material avallable on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full 4. The Id. AO has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case invoking the provisions of Sec. 11588E for taxing the income at the higher rate, without issue any show cause notice and also not applicable in the present case. The Ld. AO has also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the provisions of Sec. 1158BE so invoked are also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same is illegal, bad in law. against the principle of natural justice the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The Id. AO has grosslyerred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B.C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.’’ 3. Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee was provided multiple Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 679/JPR/2025 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR opportunities of being heard but the assessee had not responded to the same and the assessee is not aggrieved with the assessment order. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal is as under:- ‘’5.4 In view of the above, it is clear that the Appellant is not aggrieved with the assessment order impugned herein and is not interested in persuading the same. Accordingly, the additions/disallowances as challenged in the Grounds of Appeal and in the Appeal Memo are hereby confirmed 5.5 Based on the above it appears that the assessee is not keen on pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, given that this office has not received any information or document so as to make a judgment based on merits, this office is left with no option but to dismiss this appeal Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant is dismissed.’’ 4. During the course of hearing, the main thrust of the ld.AR of the assessee is that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) were not received and the notices were sent on different address by the ld. CIT(A) instead of assessee’s E Mail address mentioned in Form 35 [e-mail] whereas the ld. CIT(A) sent the hearing of notices at E Mail address [e-mail] .Thus the ld. AR submitted that this E-Mail id [e-mail] not related to the assessee. Hence, the assessee is deprived off availing opportunity to submit the reply to the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and he could not advance the submissions before him for want of non- Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 679/JPR/2025 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR communication of notices at the assessee’s address and thus the addition so made by the AO is not justified. Hence, in this view of the present situation, the ld. prayed for restoration of the appeal before the AO with a view to providing equity and justice so that the dispute in question could be settled before the AO by adducing the documents as desired by the AO. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR did not object to the grievance raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, before the Bench. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the AO (Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department), as per the information available noticed that the assessee had filed the return u/s 139(1) of income on 27-09-2022 declaring total income of Rs.38,700/- for the assessment year 2022-23. In the present case several opportunities were given to the assessee to file confirmation as well as supportive documents regarding unsecured loan amounting to Rs.28,92,134/- but in the absence of documentary evidences like identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions could not be established. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.28,92,134/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained credit and added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Further the AO noted that the assessee had shown sundry creditors in its financial statement but in spite of multiple Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 679/JPR/2025 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR opportunities, the assessee did not submit documentary evidences like confirmation of sundry creditors amounting to Rs.22,02,129/-. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.22,02,129/- in the hands of the asssessee as u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. From the records, it is noted that the assessee could not advance the submission before the ld. CIT(A) as the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) was on different E-Mail Id [e-mail] of E-Mail Id mentioned in Form No.35 by the assessee i.e. [e-mail]. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity to contest the case before him.However, the Bench is 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. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 679/JPR/2025 M/S. SHREE JEE TIMBERS VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 7. 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 byAO independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 /07/2025. 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:- 25 /07/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- M/s. Shree Jee Timbers, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-1(1), 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.679/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "