SITARAM CHAUDHARY ,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD - 4(1), JAIPUR

ITA 160/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Sitaram Choudhary, against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The primary issues in the appeals were the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the additions made under section 69 of the Act, alleging unexplained sources of cash advances. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred by 402 days and considered an application for condonation of delay, which was ultimately dismissed due to inconsistencies in the assessee's claims regarding the receipt of the CIT (A) order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126428 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: TARUN MITTAL; HARSHIT AGARWAL; LD. ARS
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Supporting evidence; Grounds of appeal; Notarized affidavit; Dismissed; A.Y. 2011-12; Deleted; Form No. 36; E-mail; ADIT
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 250; 131; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 160 & 161 (A.Y.s 2011-12 & 2012-13)/JPR/2025 Sitaram Choudhary, 7, outside Chandpole Bazar, Khetri House Road, Opp. Saroj Cinema Bhop Ji House, Jaipur 302 001 PAN No. AFUPC 7589M ...... Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-4 (1), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA & Mr. Harshit Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 07/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/04/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 31/10/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA No. 160/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) as under: 2 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by Ld.AO of Rs. 25, 00,000/- u/s. 69 on alleged unexplained source of cash advance made by assessee. Appellant prays that the addition so made is contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld.AO in ignoring the fact available on record that advance was made out of cash withdrawals made by his mother from her bank account, which was available to her on sale of immovable property, thus the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amends or abandons any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that information was received from the office of the ADIT (Inv.)-I, Jaipur that the assessee has given cash loan of Rs. 25 Lacs on 06.01.2011 and Rs. 50 Lacs on 01.10.2011 to Shri Hajari Lal. Statement of the assessee was also recorded u/s. 131 of the Act before the ADIT (Inv.)-I, Jaipur. In the statement, the assessee accepted that he had given loan of Rs. 25 Lacs to Shri Hajari Lal on 06.01.2011, but failed to file his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. Consequent to this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27.032.18. In response to the same there was no compliance by the assessee and ultimately after various opportunities as demonstrated in the assessment order, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making an addition of Rs. 25 Lacs u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee as before the Ld. CIT (A) also there was no compliance done by the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present 3 appeal before us. It is observed that the appeal before us is time barred by 402 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an duly notarized affidavit for bench’s consideration. Hence, before moving ahead, the issue of condonation of delay is to be decided for further adjudication. It is submitted by the assessee the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) vide dated: 31.10.2023 was delivered on the e-mail id and mobile no. of the Chartered Accountant of the assessee, as registered on e-filing portal which was never intimated to the assessee and was never intimated to the e-mail id and mobile no. mentioned in the Form No. 35. We have gone through the Form No. 35 and observed that in the master column of the Form No. 35 the assessee furnished e- mail id as [e-mail] and mobile no. as 9414752488 and categorically denied to receive notices on this e-mail id. Where as vide column 17 of the Form No. 35 he furnished e-mail id as [e-mail] with mobile no. as 9414044020. 3. When the assessee himself has requested for not sending the notices at his personal e-mail id as mentioned (supra) and confirmed the e-mail id of consultant for receiving the communication, how he can claim the same as reason for delay in condonation of delay application. We have further observed the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee before us and found that again he has given his consultant’s e-mail id [e-mail]. In view of this observation the claim of the assessee is contradictory as the same consultant is there, who was there at the time of proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) and earlier he was defaulter in communicating but the proceedings going on before us, he is complying. This factual observation goes against the assessee and makes his case not fit for condonation of delay rather is an attempt to misguide the Tribunal and not taken in a good spirit by this bench. 4 Further, the grounds taken by the assessee no supporting evidence/documents produced for our consideration, which may decide the matter in terms of genuineness of assessee’s intentions. As the assessee never produced any evidence in support of his claim before the authorities below. In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts, we found that the application of the assessee is not tenable and the assessee is miserably failed to establish his claim that the delay was bonafide. 4. In view of the above findings application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee is dismissed and so the appeal also without any further action and comments on the merits of the case. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. In ITA No. 161/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in re-opening the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by Ld.AO of Rs. 50, 00,000/- u/s. 69 on alleged unexplained source of cash advance made by assessee. Appellant prays that the addition so made is contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld.AO in ignoring the fact available on record that advance was made out of cash withdrawals made by his mother from her bank account, which was available to her on sale of immovable property, thus the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5 6. As the facts of this year and appeal are identical to ITA No. 160/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12), our findings (supra) vide paras 3 and 4 will apply mutatis mutandis here also. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 24th Day of April 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 24/04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. \u000eितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0015 CIT 4. िवभागीय \u000eितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 24.04.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 24.04.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order 6 "