AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2013-14 (order dated 30.08.2025), AY 2014-15 (order dated 07.08.2025) and AY 2015-16 (order dated 07.08.2025), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-30, New Delhi. For the sake of convenience these three appeals are being disposed of through a common order. Furthermore, on the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
This case has a certain set off facts which deserves to be captured on the basis of the assessment orders and for the sake of convenience the relevant passages from the same from AY 2014-15 is being reproduced as under:
“2.A search and seizure operation was carried out at the various premises of Bajaj Group and its associates including the assessee and the directors and others (hereinafter called Bajaj group of cases) on 20.04.2017. Various documents/Books of Accounts etc. were found and seized and statements of various persons were recorded. The case was centralized to this office vide Order F.No. PCIT/BKN/U/S/127/17-18/2564 dated 08.12.2017.
3.The assessment order in the case was originally passed on 25.12.2019 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee had filed a Writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur against the order u/s 127 dated 08.12.2017 challenging the centralization of the case from Bikaner to Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide ordered 3.2024 quashed the order u/s 127 dated 08.12.2017 and subsequent assessment proceedings in pursuance to the order u/s 127 and set aside with the directions to resume the proceedings from the stage of former to the transfer orders. The Hon'ble High Court further directed that if it is still proposed to transfer the case of the petitioners, opportunity of hearing shall be provided to them and thereafter, the proceedings shall be continued and concluded, strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of order. The relevant part of the Order is reproduced below:
“4.Consequently, the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 (CW No. 2066/2020), 20.12.2019 & 25.12.2019 (CW No. 3685/2020), 20.12.2019, (CW No. 4049/2020) & 26.12.2019 (CW No. 5836/2020) along with entire proceeding pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside and the proceedings shall resume from the stage of former to the transfer orders. If it is still proposed to transfer the case of the petitioners, opportunity of hearing shall be provided to them and thereafter, the proceedings shall be continued and concluded, strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from today."
4.In pursuance to the Hon'ble High Court's order, the jurisdiction of assessee was transferred from this office to ITO, W-1(1), Bikaner. Thereafter, fresh centralization order u/s 127 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Pr. CIT, Jodhpur-1 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1064828318(1) dated 13.05.2024 transferring the jurisdiction to this office, after duly considering all the objections raised by the assessee following the directions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.
5.Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 20.05.2024 directing the assessee to file return of income on or before 27.05.2024. This notice was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee submitted data of ITR in XML format on email which was unsigned and hence was not considered as valid return. Due to the limitations of the ITBA system and technical problems involved, return in response to notice u/s 153A could not be uploaded on e-filing portal in the case of assessee. Therefore, in order to enable the assessee to comply with the notice issued u/s 153A and to ensure natural justice, the assessee was advised to manually sign ITR in physical form and send a scanned copy of this signed ITR in PDF format on the official email id which will be considered as due compliance by the assessee to notice issued u/s 153A. However, the assessee has not complied with the same. As such the assessee has not filed valid return in response to notice u/s 153A. Thereafter, detailed questionnaire dated 12.06.2024 alongwith notice u/s 142(1) was issued online through ITBA Portal of the Department. In compliance to notice/s 142(1) dated 12.06.2024, assessee filed reply dated 19.06.2024. Since, the assessee had not filed a valid Return, therefore, a notice dated 22.06.2024 was issued to the assessee giving show-cause as to why order may not be passed as per provisions of section 144 of the Act in her case. The assessee has also filed objections through various letters which have been disposed off from time to time. Directions of Addl. C.I.T., Central Range-8, Delhi were also received u/s 144A of the I.T. Act vide email dated 20.06.2024 and the same have been duly followed as per the provisions of the Act.”
It is seen that for AY 2013-14 the Ld. AO has made addition u/s 153A/144 of the Act by adding an amount of Rs.2,94,780/- on account of an alleged bogus claim of an agricultural receipt. The Ld. AO has made another addition of Rs.16,46,000/- on protective basis on account of allegedly unexplained advances received and advances given to various persons. There is also an addition of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits which has again been made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee.
Regarding AY 2014-15 the AO is seen to have passed an order u/s 153A/144 of the Act and has made an addition of Rs.25,49,020/- on account of alleged bogus agricultural receipts. The Ld. AO has also made an addition of Rs.5,97,080/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit.
For AY 2015-16 the Ld. AO has passed an order u/s 153A/144 of the Act making an addition of Rs.4,29,610/- on account of alleged bogus agricultural receipts.
The Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 has given relief on account of the amount added protectively and confirmed the addition on account of alleged bogus agricultural receipts for AY 2014-15. Other additions made for that year have been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) also. For AY 2015-16 also the single addition of Rs.4,29,610/- has been upheld.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with substantial grounds in all the years which challenge the assumption of jurisdiction as also the additions on merit. For the sake of brevity, the detailed grounds are not reproduced. At this stage, it is sufficient to mention that the assessee has not been able to supply necessary documents and evidences before either of the authorities below in order that they may appreciate the factual issues in a fair manner. Even before the CIT(A) in AY 2015-16 and 2014-15 there is a finding in the Ld. CIT(A) orders that the orders passed by them are ex parte in nature.
The Ld. DR assisted the bench in going through the records before us and pointed out that the authorities below have simply gone by the documents and facts available with them. The Ld. DR took us through the findings of the authorities below and commented on the same by emphasizing that the Ld. AO had a plausible reason to make the additions and the assessee could not offer any evidence-based rebuttal of the same. The Ld. DR pointed out that it is at the stage of ITAT that in all the three years the assessee has filed applications under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of fresh evidence. It was the submission that such evidences deserve to be examined by the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and we have gone through the documents before us. We find that in all the three years the assessee has presented certain documents for admission as fresh evidence mainly connected to the assumption of jurisdiction. We also find that the additions on merit have not been challenged with pin-pointed evidence which would certainly be in the possession of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is directed that the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee at this stage will need to be comprehensively considered and a fair order on those issues would need to be penned by the Ld. CIT(A). We would also expect that the assessee would file all relevant material in his possession so that even on merits the issues can be decided fairly.
In the result, these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.