VINOD KUMAR SHARMA,GANGAPURCITY V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARAULI

ITA 308/JPR/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which sustained an assessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment included an addition of Rs. 12,20,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte, noting the absence of any submission from the assessee to counter the assessment order. The Tribunal noted the repeated opportunities given to the assessee and the lack of response, but decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to ensure a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711595 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: G.N. SHARMA; THRU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 308/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma C/oShri G.N. Sharma, Advocate F-42, ‘’Dwarika, A-12, Central Spine Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302 039 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward - Karauli Swaimadhopur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: HBZPS 0304A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri G.N. Sharma, Advocate (Thru: VH) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 21 /07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A) ] dated 02-12- 2024, for the assessment year 2016-17 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and on the law in sustaining the assessment order (impugned) dated 30-03-2022 passed u/s 147 of the Act without considering the facts of the case properly. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 308/JPR/2025 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-KARAULI, SWAIMADHOPUR 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred on the facts and on the law in sustaining impugned order dated 30-03-2022 which was passed by the NFAC, ex- parte without considering the facts of the case properly. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has further more erred on the facts and on the law in sustaining the impugned order dated 30-03-2022 and confirmed addition of Rs.12,20,000/- undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act. Additional Grounds of appeal 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has further more erred on the facts and on the law in sustaining the impugned order which was passed without having valid sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the DCIT, Central Circle-Kota, hence sanction obtained from the DCIT was without jurisdiction of law. 5. That the AO has further more erred on the facts and on the law in passing the impugned order without following procedure of law by not issuing any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 6. That the impugned appellate order was served on 02-12-2024, hence the appeal is within limitation as prescribed under the provisions of the Act. 7. That, the appellant reserves his right to add/ amend/ alter or delay any ground (s) of appeal on or before hearing of the case. Prayer 1. That out of the above 7 grounds of appeal, ground no. 4 and 5 are identical grounds of appeal, an application for allowing and adjudication of the same is being submitted separately. 2. Therefore, in view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and provisions of the Act, we humbly pray your honour to please consider the facts and provisions of the Act in the interest of natural justice, declare the notice u/s 148 of the Act null and void, quash the notice u/s 148of the Act and the impugned order, allow the appeal, delete the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- as unexplained investment and any other relief for which the appellant – assessee is deemed fit as per law, may kindly be allowed in the interest of natural justice and oblige.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 308/JPR/2025 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-KARAULI, SWAIMADHOPUR 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as in spite of the E-notices dated 27-09-2024, 17-10-2024 and 6-11-2024, the assessee has not filed any written submission to counter the order of the AO. It is also relevant to mention that there is no explanation as to the investment of Rs.12.20 lacs by the assessee and thus the AO treated this investment of Rs.12.20 lacs as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The relevant narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’7.4 In view of the above factual discussion and matrix of the case, addition of Rs.12,20,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBEmade by the AO is upheld, hence confirmed. Thus, the grounds of appeal no.2 & 3 are dismissed. 8. During the appellate proceedings, despite being provided multiple opportunities of being heard, the appellant has failed to provide any persuasive or credible evidence to substantiate his claims. In fact, appellant had simply filed appeal against the Assessment Order and raised grounds of appeal. However, mere raising of grounds of appeal are not sufficient to adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid evidences/document advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in Assessment Order, I am unable to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he may be provided one more opportunity to argue / advance the submissions before the ld CIT(A) to settle the dispute in question. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 308/JPR/2025 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-KARAULI, SWAIMADHOPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is noticed that the AO made addition of Rs.12.20 lacs in the hands of the assessee being unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. The relevant observation as made by the AO in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’8. As such, there are several opportunities were given to the assessee of being heard of the departmental assessment proceedings, but the assessee has not bothered to defense himself for non compliance of these opportunities. Therefore, a show-cause for ex-parte assessment was issued vide letter dated 17.03.2023 fixed for compliance on 22.03.2022 but again the assessee has not been complied till date. 9. In view of this, it can be concluded that the assessee is not bothered to comply to the departmental notices neither filed any details/documents nor fied ROI in response to the notice u/s 148 10. Unexplained Investment The assessee along with other four partners purchased an agriculture land situated at Khasara no 215/588, Tehsil Gangapur Cirty from Siti Badri Prasad for total consideration fro Rs 61,00,000/- in which assessee's share comes to Rs.12.20,000/- The Purchase consideration of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 12.20,000/- remained unaccounted as the return of income filed by the assessee but the source of investment is not incorporated in the return of income. Therefore, the Purchase consideration of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 12.20,000/- is considered as unexplained Investment of the assessee and is added to the total income of the assessee uls. 69 read with section 115BBE of the LT Act, 1961. (Addition: Unexplained investment of Rs. 12,20,000/- u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the LT. Act, 1961] A show cause notice was issued on 25/03/2022 in which the date of compliance is on or before 28/03/2022 but the assessee has compliance on 26/03/2022 and made submission. His submission was duly perused and taken into consideration but his reply is not satisfactory.’’ Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 308/JPR/2025 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-KARAULI, SWAIMADHOPUR In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee had not advanced any submission to counter the order of the AO. However, in the course of hearing before the Bench, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.From the records, it is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case.. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 308/JPR/2025 SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-KARAULI, SWAIMADHOPUR having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/07/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Swaimadhopur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-Karauli (Swaimadhopur) 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.308/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "