VARUN KUMAR JAIN,NABHA V. ITO, WARD, NABHA

MA 7/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Varun Kumar Jain, the proprietor of Varun Jewellers, who filed a Miscellaneous Application following the dismissal of his appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The original appeal contested additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-Nabha, which included Rs. 12,34,000 for cash deposits and Rs. 2,98,080 for undisclosed income, during the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the return filed by the assessee was invalid, thus rendering any additions based on it illegal and void ab initio. However, the M.A. argued that the Tribunal should have adjudicated on the merits of the additions despite the return's invalidity, as this was a mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711853 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJMOHAN SINGH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 7/Chd/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 770/CHD/2023 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sh. Varun Kumar Jain, Prop. Varun Jewellers, Near Kesho Ram Halwai, Nabha बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward-Nabha èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFUPJ3948R अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : The present Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) has been filed by the Assessee on 18.11.2024 in the matter in ITA No. 770/Chd/2023 relating to A.Y. 2017-18, decided vide Order of this Tribunal dated 30.10.2024. 2. The M.A. has been filed on following facts: Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.7-Chd-2024- Varun Kumar Jain, Nabha 2 1. That the above appeal preferred by the appellant has been heard and decided by the Hon'ble SMC Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vide order dated 30.10.2024. 2. That the assessment was framed u/s 144 by the assessing officer after making an addition of Rs.12,34,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account and another addition of Rs.2,98,080/- treating returned income to be undisclosed. 3. That the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment framed which was dismissed. 4. That the assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT raising as many as 5 grounds of appeal in Form 36. 5. That the Hon'ble Bench dismissed Ground No.1 raised by the assessee holding that the return filed by the assessee was an invalid return as discussed in Para 6 of the impugned order. 6. Once the return has been held to be invalid, any addition made thereafter on the basis of invalid return is illegal and void ab initio. Thus, the Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.7-Chd-2024- Varun Kumar Jain, Nabha 3 appeal of the assessee ought to have been allowed and not dismissed. This being a mistake apparent from record, the present Miscellaneous application has been filed for rectification of the mistake. 7. That further, the Hon'ble Bench dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating and giving any findings on the other grounds of appeal raised on merits of the additions for the reasons mentioned in Para 7 of the order which reads as under: “We are not giving findings on other grounds of appeal as the very basis of the appeal, the return of income was a invalid one Accordingly, the Assessee's appeal is dismissed.\" 8. That even though the return has been held to be invalid, any addition challenged on merits has to be adjudicated and as such non adjudication of grounds duly raised on merits of the addition is a mistake apparent from record. 3. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that although the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on an invalid ITR, however, appeal against that addition should be heard even if the ITR Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.7-Chd-2024- Varun Kumar Jain, Nabha 4 was not valid because once the assessment is done, appeal arising out of such assessment is also to be heard. 4. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the order of the Tribunal in this cased passed on 30.10.2024 and in view of the facts brought out in the M.A., as mentioned above, the order is recalled. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course by issuing notices to the parties. 6. In the result, M.A. filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 25.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Vice President Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "