SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1380/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal included the non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 2,31,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the IT Act, and the charging of a special rate of tax under Section 115 BBE of the IT Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's habitual default and a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal. However, following a rectification order from the AO, which reduced the demand to nil, the assessee withdrew the appeal, rendering it infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472783 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: UOI vs Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL PARIHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. POONIA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Rectification of order
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 154; 43; 69

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1380/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP 82-84, Green Colony, Moti Nagar, Ganuhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACOFS8804L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 18 /03/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 18-09-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (CIT(A)/NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal. “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not condoning the delay of appeal which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly condone the delay. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,31,00,000/- imposed by the Ld. A.O. on account of unexplained investment U/S. 69 of the ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 2 I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in charging special rate of tax u/s. 115 BBE of the 1.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 4. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 2.1 Apropos ground of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee treating it as an ex-parte order on the ground that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and during the course of appeal proceedings the assessee was accorded various opportunities but the assessee remained unresponsive and there was also delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before him. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) at page 19 of his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 43 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly, I decline the delay of 43 days and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion, appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand dismissed.’’ ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 3 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted a letter praying that he is withdrawing this appeal as the present appeal is infructuous in view of the rectification order passed by the AO dated 19-05-2023 wherein the AO reduced the demand as Nil. The narration as made by the ld. AR of the assessee in his submission dated 20-02-2025 is reproduced as under:- ‘’Facts of the case:- 1. That assessment order was passed by Ld. A.O. u/s. 147r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 20.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs. 2,31,00,000/- . Copy of assessment order 20.03.2022 is enclosed. 2. That on 31.05.2022, assessee-firm filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order dated 31.05.2022. Copy of acknowledgement of Form 35 is enclosed. 3. That meanwhile the Ld. A.O. passed a rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act, on 19.05.2023 and the finding mentioned in last para of rectification order made by Ld. A.O. is as follows:- \"In view of the above, the fresh reassessment proceedings u/s 148 for the AY 2015'16 initiated on 28.07.2022, is pending in this case. Therefore, the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2022 has become infructuous and null & void hence the Assessment order passed on 20.03.2022 is rectified and demand is reduced to Nil accordingly. Copy of rectification order dated 19.05.2023 is enclosed. Our Submission:- 1. That the assessment order dated 20.03.2022 as well as CIT (Appeal) order dated 18.09.2024 becomes infructuous, as the rectification order was passed and the demand is reduced to Nil. 2. In light of the above facts, the present appeal is infructuous, therefore we are withdrawing this present appeal. Kindly allow us to withdraw this present appeal.’’ ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 4 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO vide his order dated 20-03-2022 passed an ex-parte order by making an addition of Rs.2.31 Crores in the hands of the assesseee by observing as under:- ‘’4.2 Despite sufficient number of opportunities have been given to the assessee. No compliance has been made by the assessee. Therefore, the details related to source of purchase of property, genuineness of transaction could not be verified. Hence, the investment made of Rs.2,31,00,000/- for purchase of property is being treated as unexplained investment of the assessee. 4.3 In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and in absence of any reply/ documentary evidences / information/ details in support of purchase of immovable property, the department has no other option except to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, the purchase of the immovable property of Rs.2,31,00,000/- is being treated as the unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and taxed in accordance with the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act. Hence, the same is added back to the income declared in ITR.’’ In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order by declining the condondation of delay of 43 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and thus dismissed the appeal as mentioned hereinabove. It is pertinent to mention that the AO has passed an order dated 19-05-2023 making rectification in the assessment order passed u/s 147/ 144B of the ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 5 Act by the AO on 20-03-2022. The narration as mentioned by the AO in his order dated 19-05-2023 is reproduced as under:- DIN: ITBA/REC/M/154/2023-24/1052987004(1) DT. 19/05/23 INCOME –TAX DEPARTMENT Name and address of the Assessee Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP 82-84, Green Colony, Moti nagar, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021. PAN ACOFS8804L Status Firms Assessment Year 2015-16 Date of order 19.05.2023 Rectification of Assessment Order passed u/s 147/144B of the I.T. Act In compliance to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal and consequent CBDT Instruction No 01/2022/F.No 279/Misc/M-51/2022-ITJ dated 11/05/2022, that the information and material relied upon for initiating reassessment proceedings is to be provided to the assessee in all cases where notice u/s 148 issued & served after 31.03.2021. Therefore In this case the notice was issued on 08.04.2021. Therefore, an opportunity by way of issuance of letter with information and material relied upon for Initiating reassessment proceedings was provided to the assessee. After considering the facts of the case as well as reply furnished by the assessee, the fresh reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act has been initiated in the case of Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP for AY 2015-16 and fresh notice u/s 148 has been issued to assessee on 28/07/2022 by passing order u/s 148A(d) on 28/07/2022 after getting approval from the PCIT-1, Jaipur vide No.1192 dated 23.07.2022. In the present case the assessment order was passed order u/s 147/144 r.w.s 1448 of the I.T. Act on 20/03/2022 by faceless AO against the notice issued earlier notice u/s 148 dated 09.04.2021 by making additions of Rs. 2,31,00,000/-and raised demand of Rs.1,53,10,710/- In view of the above, the fresh reassessment proceedings u/s 148 for the AY 2015-16 Initiated on 28.07.2022, is pending in this case. Therefore, the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2022 has become infructuous and null & void hence the Assessment order passed on 20.03.2022 is rectified and demand is reduced to Nil accordingly. ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 6 Issue necessary forms as per rule. Sd/- (Hardayal Singh Rathore) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3),Jaipur. Copy to the Assessee. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jaipur. From the entire conspectus of the case, it is noticed that the AO has mentioned in his rectification order dated 19-05-2023 that assessment order passed on 20-03-2022 has become infructuous, null & void and demand is reduced to Nil accordingly. Since the AO has reduced demand as Nil, therefore, there is no need to consider the order of the ld. CIT(A), supra as it was not decided by him on merit but dismissed the appeal in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that the ld. AR of the assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeal of the assessee in view of the rectification order dated 19-05-2023 passed by the AO (supra). Conclusively, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the reason that the AO has himself reduced the demand as Nil and it is treated as withdrawn by the assessee. ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024 Shri Vinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP vs. ITO 7 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as having been withdrawn as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18 /03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1380/JPR/2024} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "