SHREEJEE UDYOG,BAGRU V. ITO, WARD-7(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 356/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shreejee Udyog, which appealed against the order of the Addl. CIT/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal for non-prosecution, despite claims that no notices of hearing were served. The assessee had initially faced an addition of Rs. 7,75,910 by the AO under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, due to non-furnishing of required documents during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, noting the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices. The Tribunal, however, decided to hear the case on merits, emphasizing the need to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669297 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SISODIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA. No. 356/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 M/s. Shreejee Udyog H-128, Old RIICO Industrial Area Link Road, Bagru cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-7 (2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACNFS 9283 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajendra Sisodia, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :24/06/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 26 /06 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Addl. CIT/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi, dated 12-12-2023 for the assessment years 2017- 18in the matter of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ]and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution notwithstanding the fact that none of the notices of hearing were served on the assessee, as provided by law. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the 2 ITA NO. 356/JPR/2025 SHREEJEE UDYOG VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF. (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO, without deciding the case on merits and arbitrarily rejecting the appeal for non-prosecution.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 371 days in filing the appeal for which the partner of the assessee firm Shri Jagdish Prasad Jat has filed the following affidavit narrating therein the reason for such delay in filing the appeal. ‘’1. That the assessment of M/s Shreejee Udyog was completed on 01.12.2019 Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur, making an addition of Rs. 7,75,910/ 2. That an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of assessment which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2023. 3. That simultaneously the assessee had also opted for VSVT, 2020 and had filed Form-1 & 2 on 30.03 2021. It received Form-3 on 30.09.2021, six months after filing Form 1& 2. 4. It had deposited a total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards the tax liability. 5. In the meantime, the accountant of the firm, Shri Niranjan Sharma, left the job and shifted to Gurgaon. The assessee was given to believe that the dispute has been settled 6. The work relating to filing of appeal and opting for VSVT, 2020 and its follow-up was entrusted to Shri Niranjan Sharma and it was in his exclusive knowledge and only he had knowledge and access to the ITBA portal and the mail id of the firm. All the partners of the assessee firm are 3 ITA NO. 356/JPR/2025 SHREEJEE UDYOG VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR almost illiterate and were totally unaware about it, and were dependent on him. 7. That the appellate order was never received through post and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the appeal having been disposed off. 8. That the fact of appeal having been decided and demand having been raised came to my knowledge when a received a phone call on 25 February, 2025, from Income tax Office asking to deposit the outstanding demand. 9. That immediately I contacted Shri Rajendra Sisodia, Advocate, through local consultant, Shri R.N.Sharma, to file the appeal at the earliest, who assured me to undertake it within a week 10. That the delay in filing the appeal was on account of non- communication of the appellate order and was unintentional and there was no malafide intention in non-filing of the same 11 The delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.’’ Hence, he prayed that the delay so made in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in view of the above reasons. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is sufficient cause in late filing the appeal by the ld.AR of the assessee. Hence, the delay 4 ITA NO. 356/JPR/2025 SHREEJEE UDYOG VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR so made by the ld. AR of the assessee is condoned as explained by the ld. AR of the assessee and thus the appeal is heard on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the AO vide his order dated 01-12-2019 under section 144 of the Act made addition in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs.7,75,910/- for the reason that the assessee had not furnished any explanation or cash book and any other documents to the amounts deposited in the bank during demonetization period. 3.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte by observing as under:- ‘’3. The appellant was given many hearing notices 20-08-2021, 01-06-2022, 20-11-2023 and 29-11-2023 but no reply was filed by the appellant against any if the above notices. Further, it is noted that despite giving various opportunities to represent the case over the years the appellant has chosen not to submit any documents. It is apparent that appellant has not shown any interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed for statistical purposes.’’ 3.3 During the course of hearing, the grievance of the ld.AR of the assessee was that the ld. Addl/ JCIT(A) has confirmed the addition without disposing off the appeal on merits. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5 ITA NO. 356/JPR/2025 SHREEJEE UDYOG VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 3.5 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.7,75,910/- in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not furnished any documents, cash book and any other document in the course of assessment proceedings which has been confirmed by the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A) as the assessee did not respond to the various notices sent by the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A). From the records, the Bench noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. Addl.CIT/JCIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not put forth his 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 its 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 6 ITA NO. 356/JPR/2025 SHREEJEE UDYOG VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.6 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. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 26 /06/2025. 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:- 26/06 /2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s. Shreejee Udyog, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 356/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@By order lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar "