VIMAL KUMAR JAIN,NEAR KHADE GANESHJI MANDIR V. ITO WARD1(2), KOTA, ITO WARD KOTA

ITA 426/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vimal Kumar Jain, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Jaipur -4, which was dated 25-02-2025 for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention in the appeal was the addition of Rs.1,30,39,090 to the assessee's income, which was claimed to be undisclosed stock. The assessee argued that the stock was purchased from farmers and all relevant taxes and receipts were duly issued, which the department allegedly did not consider. Additionally, the assessee faced personal hardships, including arrest and subsequent release on bail, which he claimed affected his ability to respond to the tax authorities. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of any representation or submission from the assessee during the hearings and found that the lower authorities had passed a well-reasoned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793582 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2025
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 426/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Vimal Kumar Jain Rangbari Road Kota cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 1(2) Kota LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAWPJ 9897N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23 /09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Jaipur -4 dated 25-02-2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’A survey was conducted on assessee making an addition of Rs.1,30,39,090/- by invoking undisclosed stock found but assessee try to make explanation of stock was purchased from farmer, mandi tax paid, purchase receipt issued by mandi samiti, but department not considered and made the addition. On 22-10-2011 assessee was arrested by Police due to complain raised by some farmer for non-payment and then assessee was Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 426/JPR/2025 VIMAL KUMAR JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(2), KOTA released on 4-09-2013 by High Court order. Assessee was mentally disturbed and arise certain medical problems. There is no employment in family, no earning member in family, whole family was disturbed from above incidence. Assessee was not aware about any income tax notice and unable to file appeal before CIT(A) on time. There was no one to help them for income tax proceedings. So there is no reasonable cause and out of control of assessee to file appeal before ld. CIT(A).’’ 2.1 The Bench during the course of hearing observed that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing nor any written submission was filed by the assessee to counter the orders of the lower authorities. Hence, the Bench decided to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex-parte based on the materials available on record 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 2.3 The Bench heard the ld. DR and after going through the file in the case of the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities i.e. AO and the ld. CIT(A) and thus made no compliance nor filed any explanation to the queries raised by the Revenue authorities. The Bench feels that the burden of proof lay upon the assessee and he is required to offer the explanation to the satisfaction of the Revenue authorities but it was not done by the assessee. The Bench further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) and AO passed well reasoned speaking order and after going through the same, the Bench finds that no interference is Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 426/JPR/2025 VIMAL KUMAR JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(2), KOTA required as the assessee has not rebutted the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities . In this situation, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 /09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu Xkks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25/09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Vimal Kumar Jain, Kota 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(2), Kota 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 426/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "