AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are directed against the orders dated 11.12.2025 and 31.12.2025 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCIT and Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment orders dated 27.12.2018 passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by DCIT /ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2014-15. All these appeals relate to the Surender Kumar Jain Group on which a search operation u/s 132 was conducted on 02.03.2017. Pursuant to the search, all the cases were centralized and proceedings u/s 153A were initiated.
As facts and circumstances are common, we dispose of all these appeals, by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The assessees who filed these appeals are Ms. Geetika Jain (L/R of Late Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain), Ms. Geetika Jain (individual) and Smt. Poonam Jain (wife of late Sh. S.K. Jain)
The assessees have raised several grounds of appeal challenging the additions made u/s 68 of the Act on merits as well as on legal grounds.
ITA Nos. - 1983/Del/2026, 1988/Del/2026 and 1991/Del/2026 pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 in the case of Geetika Jain (as L/R of late Sh. S.K. Jain.
At the outset, Ld. AR has pointed out that these three appeals are duplicate appeals arising on account of erroneous dismissal of the application / appeal papers filed by Ms. Geetika Jain for substituting her name as the L/R of Sh. S.K. Jain as he had passed away during the pendency of original appeals.
Brief facts submitted by Ld. AR in this regard are as under:
‘Shri Surendra Kumar Jain expired on 29.06.2021. Ms. Geetika Jain, daughter of the deceased appellant was substituted as the legal representative in the pending appellate proceedings. Amended Form No. 35 were filed on 01.10.2025 only for substitution of Ms. Geetika Jain as the legal representative. However, instead of substituting the legal representative in the pending appeals, fresh appeal numbers 3 were generated by the CIT(A), resulting in duplicate appellate proceedings for the same assessment years.
Separate ex-parte orders dated 31.12.2025 were thereafter passed by the CIT(A) in such duplicate appeals on the purported ground of delay/ non-condonation thereof though no condonation application had been filed. Since the original appeals had already been validly instituted on 24.01.2019 within the prescribed period of limitation and remained pending and the duplicate appeals were filed only for substitution of legal representative, the question of seeking condonation of delay did not arise at all.
Appeals in ITA Nos. 1983/Del/2026, 1988/Del/2026 and 1991/Del/2026 arise from the above duplicate appellate orders which ought not to have been treated as separate and independent appeals by the CIT(A).”
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the appeals in ITA Nos. 1983/Del/2026, 1988/Del/2026 and 1991/Del/2026 are duplicate appeals arising from the aforesaid proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The original appeals were already pending before the Ld. CIT(A), which were subsequently decided and against those appellate orders, the assessee is now in appeal before us. The present appeals, being duplicate in nature, have become infructuous. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos. - 1983/Del/2026, 1988/Del/2026 and 1991/Del/2026 are dismissed as infructuous.
ITA Nos.- 1985/Del/2026, 1987/Del/2026 and 1989/Del/2026 pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15, in the case of Geetika Jain (as L/R of late Sh. S.K. Jain.
Ld. AR has submitted that the original appeals in ITA Nos. 1985/Del/2026, 1987/Del/2026 and 1989/Del/2026 were filed by Shri Surendra Kumar Jain before the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.01.2019, during his lifetime. Subsequently, upon his demise, Ms. Geetika Jain, daughter of the deceased Sh. S.K. Jain, was substituted as his legal representative in the appellate proceedings.
It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), vide orders dated 11.12.2025, disposed of the aforesaid original appeals on merits. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), present appeals have been filed before the Tribunal by Ms. Geetika Jain, legal representative of Late Shri Surendra Kumar Jain.
On merits, at the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were passed ex parte, as the assessee was not able to make requisite compliance before him. He has, therefore, requested that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matters may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.
Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we hereby restore these appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance during the appellate proceedings.
In the result, all three appeals in ITA Nos.- 1985/Del/2026, 1987/Del/2026 and 1989/Del/2026 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA Nos.- 1984/Del/2026, 1986/2026 and 1990/Del/2026 pertaining to A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15, in the case of Geetika Jain (Individual).
Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals in ITA Nos. 1984/Del/2026, 1986/Del/2026 and 1990/Del/2026 have been filed by Ms. Geetika Jain in her individual capacity against the orders dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) have been passed ex parte, as the assessee was not able to make requisite compliance before him. He has, therefore, requested that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matters may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Ld. DR has also not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance during the appellate proceedings.
In the result, all three appeals in ITA Nos.- 1984/Del/2026, 1986/Del/2026 and 1990/Del/2026 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA Nos.- 1968/Del/2026, pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12, in the case of Smt. Poonam Jain.
This appeal has been filed by Ms. Poonam Jain against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11.12.2025 on merits.
At the outset, Ld. AR has pointed out that the orders by the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed ex parte, as the assessee was not able to make requisite compliance before him. He has, therefore, requested that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
At the same time, Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance during the appellate proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In totality, the three appeals viz. ITA Nos.- 1983,1988 and 1991/Del/2026 are hereby dismissed and the seven appeals bearing ITA Nos.- 1985, 1987, 1989,1984,1986,1990 and 1968/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.