UGRASEN YADAV,JAIPUR V. ITO WD 7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 886/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ugrasen Yadav, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 27,64,942 to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unverified unsecured loans. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the nature of the issues, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for effective adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771814 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANOOP BHATIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 68; 133(6)

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. 886/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ugrasen Yadav 43. Sukh Vihar Colony Near Pratap Nagar, jaipur. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPY8583B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 27 /08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Present appeal challenging order dated 18.02.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”), has been filed on 03.06.2025. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, the appeal came to be presented 34 days after the prescribed period of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 886/JPR/2025 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. 2. On behalf of the appellant, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant. 3. First of all, we have heard on the application seeking condonation of delay. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that inadvertently in the application as well as in affidavit it has been alleged that this is a case on delay of 75 days. 4. As mentioned above, the impugned order was passed on 18.02.2025, and the appeal came to be filed on 03.06.2025. 5. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen and during the relevant period, he was not keeping health, for which he was undergoing medical treatment, and as such, unable to contact Tax Consultant for the purpose of filing of the appeal. 6. It is true that with the application, no medical record has been submitted, but, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the condonation of delay. When the affidavit of the applicant has gone unchallenged, there being delay of 34 days, having record to the nature of the issues involved, we deem it a fit case, to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 886/JPR/2025 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. 7. Arguments have been advanced today itself even on merits. 8. The assessee was before Learned CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, relating to the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,27,320/- by making addition of Rs. 27,64,942/-, u/s 68 of the Act. The above said addition has been made taking into consideration certain unsecured loans availed of by the assessee during the year under consideration. As is available from the assessment order, the assessee was called upon to furnish confirmation of 7 persons, from whom unsecured loans are stated to have been availed of, but the assessee did not submit proper confirmations. 9. As observed by the Assessing Officer, notices 133(6) of the Act were issued to all the abovesaid 7 persons. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the above named persons, with their ID proof, bank statements, and ITRs, but the assessee failed to comply with directions. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer proceeded further, and passed the assessment order. 10. As regards the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), record reveals that three notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) i.e. dated 20.4.2022, 24.06.2022 and 02.11.2023, but the assessee failed to Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 886/JPR/2025 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. comply with or to produce any material there, in support of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 11. Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee is able to properly pursue his case during assessment proceedings by producing the entire material as regards unsecured loans. 12. When questioned by the Bench as to why the assessee-appellant did not comply with the directions issued by Learned CIT(A), even though three notices were issued, the only submission put forth by the Ld. AR for the appellant is that the assessee being a senior citizen could not participate in the appellate proceedings. 13. Ld. AR for the department submitted that in the given situation, the matter may be remitted to Learned CIT(A), instead of remitting it to the Assessing Officer. 14. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) issued three notices to the assessee-appellant u/s 250 of the Act, but there was no compliance or appearance from his side. It was the duty of the appellant to appear before Learned CIT(A). After all, appellant must have engaged some AR for the purpose of filing of the appeal. In such a situation, the appellant and his AR should have also participated in the appellate proceedings. No sufficient Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 886/JPR/2025 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. explanation has been put forth regarding non compliance of the notices. But keeping in view the issues involved i.e. as regards the unsecured loans and as observed by the Assessing Officer from the incomplete record produced by the assessee in proof of identity and genuineness of the lenders, the assessee failed to establish his case, we deem it a fit case where the assessee should be afforded another opportunity of being heard for effective adjudication of the matter. Result 15. In view 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. 16. As is available from the assessment order, the assessee is himself an Advocate in practice. It being so, the assessee was expected to be more vigilant in pursuing the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A). Since he failed to do so, the appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand only). Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 886/JPR/2025 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. The appellant to produce before the Assessing Officer, receipt in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) 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 28/08/2025. 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:- 28/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur. 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. 886/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "