VIPIN PANSARI,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 683/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Vipin Pansari against the order of the ld. Addl.JCIT(A), Panchkula, which confirmed the AO's assessment including the income of the assessee's wife in his hands on a substantive basis. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 3,91,159 to the assessee's income, which was the income declared by his wife. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the present appeal. The tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and had not provided supporting documents or pursued the appeal effectively. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775668 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK SHARMA; THRU; SPEED POST
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c)

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 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. 683/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Vipin Pansari 58, Gold Spot Colony, Nanu Nagar Murlipura, Jaipur – 302 039 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(3) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADDPP 3766 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Addl.JCIT(A), Panchkula dated 27-02-2025 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. Impugned assessment order dated 26.12.2019 passed under section 148 r.w.s 147 is bad in law and on facts being against the principal of natural justice and for many more other statutory reasons. 2 The very action taken u/s 148 is contrary to the law as well facts resultantly the impugned assessment order passed u/s 148 dated 26.12.2019 is contrary to the law as well as facts and deserved to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR 3. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld.AO in assessing and including the income shown by wife of assessee in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. The action of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law as well as facts and deserves to be quashed. 4. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the addition of Rs. 3,91,159/- being the returned income shown by wife of assessee. The said action is bad in law and on facts, unjustified, excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 5 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte appeal order dated 27.02.2025. The said action is bad in law and on facts, against the principle of natural justice, hence deserves to quashed. 6 Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. A.O. has erred by determining total Income at Rs. 7,45,620/-, which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The income determined is excessive, unjustified or illegal and deserves to be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos to grounds of appeal (supra), it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal for the reason that the assessee had neither pursued the appeal nor furnished any reply to counter the assessment order wherein the AO made addition amounting to Rs.3,91,159/-. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- 7. Decision: 7.1. On Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 4: In these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 3,91,159/- on account of clubbing of income of his wife with the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR 7.2 I have gone through the assessment order and relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced as under: - \"After recording reasons, notice u/s 148 of the income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2019 was issued & sent to the assessee by speed post after getting previous approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax-2, Jaipur. In compliance thereto assessee has not filed return of income. In order to complete the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued on 19.7.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 26.7.2019 but assessee has not made any compliance on the given date. Again, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued on 4.9.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 19.9.2019. Assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 3,30,460/- on 04/10/2019. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) issued to the assessee on 26/11/2019. In compliance thereto assessee filed written submission which were carefully considered. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish certain information including economic activities of his wife who is also filing separate return of Income and using the same bank account no 61026513769 which is in the name of Smt Ambika Pansari and Vipin Pansari The assessee has not replied regarding economic activities of his wife, only submit copy of Income Tax Return of his wife, this clearly reveals that the wife of the assessee has no economic activity and whole affairs which is showing in the bank account are arranged by the assessee himself for the purpose of avoiding tax liability, separate return of income in the name of his wife was filed and business stated to be in separate capacity. This fact clearly proved that his wife has shown closing stock as on 31/03/2011 at Rs. 2,18,420/-whereas she sold goods worth Rs. 5,32,000/- on 05/04/2011 and no purchases were made by her from 01/04/2011 to 5/4/2011, it means the goods sold by her wife belongs to the assessee Sh. Vipin Pansari. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR In view of this the return income filed by the assessee's wife belongs to the assessee and it is assessed in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis and return income of Smt. Ambika Pansari is treated on protective basis. With these remarks total income of the assessee is taken at Rs. 7,45,623/- including return income of his wife at Rs. 3,91,159/- Further assessee has concealed his income and therefore, it is fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I. T Act. Accordingly penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income are hereby initiated’’ 7.3 During the course of appeal proceedings, no reply has been filed by the appellant in spite of sufficient opportunities provided as detailed above. I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and considered the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order with detailed discussion on the issue involved therein. The appellant has not pursued the appeal. No details, documents or submissions have been provided by the appellant substantiating his grounds of appeal. Moreover, mere facts mentioned in Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence and submissions. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case. Also, the appellant has failed to bring anything on record to support his grounds of appeal and to counter the addition made by the AO. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the AO. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and could not adduce supporting documents as to the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.3,91,159/-. Hence Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR he may be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the AO and also to submit the documents with a view to settling the dispute in question, in the interest of equity and justice. 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 vide assessment order dated 26-12- 2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act made addition amounting to Rs.3,91,159/- by observing as under:- ‘’During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish certain information including economic activities of his wife who is also filing separate return of Income and using the same bank account no 61026513769 which is in the name of Smt Ambika Pansari and Vipin Pansari The assessee has not replied regarding economic activities of his wife, only submit copy of Income Tax Return of his wife, this clearly reveals that the wife of the assessee has no economic activity and whole affairs which is showing in the bank account are arranged by the assessee himself for the purpose of avoiding tax liability, separate return of income in the name of his wife was filed and business stated to be in separate capacity. This fact clearly proved that his wife has shown closing stock as on 31/03/2011 at Rs. 2,18,420/-whereas she sold goods worth Rs. 5,32,000/- on 05/04/2011 and no purchases were made by her from 01/04/2011 to 5/4/2011, it means the goods sold by her wife belongs to the assessee Sh. Vipin Pansari. In view of this the return income filed by the assessee's wife belongs to the assessee and it is assessed in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis and return income of Smt. Ambika Pansari is treated on protective basis. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR With these remarks total income of the assessee is taken at Rs. 7,45,623/- including return income of his wife at Rs. 3,91,159/- In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee neither pursued the appeal before him nor adduced any documents to counter the addition made by the AO in the assessment order. From the records, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. 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, the Bench is 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 AO 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 AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 683/JP/2025 SHRI VIPIN PANSARI VS ITO, WRD 4(3), JAIPUR expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /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:- 08 /09/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Vipin Pansari, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 4(3), Jaipur 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. 683/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "