vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oJa hujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No. 808/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2021-22 Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency cuke The ITO Old RTDC, HQ Building, Vs. Ward 1(1)

Opp.RailwayStation,Jaipur – 302 006 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjl-a@PAN/GIR No.: AACAR 7608 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 01 /09 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Addl. /

JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 21-03-2025 for the assessment year 2021-22 raising therein following ground of appeal;

‘’The order of the CIT Appeals is ex parte and without hearing the assessee.

The assessee could not respond to the notices of the CIT Appeals due to old email id. The CPC TDS cell raised a demand on interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 23,46,390 which is related to F.Y. 2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) as the bank branch where the cheques were deposited was grappled with the onslaught of the COVID pandemic wherein the bank was witnessing a lot of distress and agony due to the staff members at the front-end getting infected with Covid 19. Transactions pertinent to the TDS payment were inadvertently missed out by bank consequent to the acute staff shortage. Based on the Humanitarian grounds and the adversities that each one of us had to undergo at a personal level during the peak of the pandemic era, we wish to humbly request your good self to waive off the interest arising consequent to the delay in the TDS payment not due to assessee’s default. So, interest levied of Rs. 23,46,390 on late deposit of TDS during COVID period must be deleted due to this reasonable cause and refund the TDS amount as it was paid out of general public welfare fund.

2.1 Apropos of the solitary ground of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.Addl./JCIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO as the assessee did not submit any explanation or supporting evidence to prove its grounds even though it was provided sufficient opportunities. The narration of observation made by the ld.Addl./JCIT(A) is as under:-

‘’6.3 The appellant, despite in the knowledge of receipt of hearing notices, seems to have chose not file any submissions, implying casual nature on part of the appellant. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant has no bonafide explanation to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, chose not to avail the opportunities afforded to it during the appeal proceedings. Needless to state that nothing cogent was filed during the assessment proceedings.

6.4. As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR 354) held that an appeal means an effective appeal-

"Expression "prefer an appeal" would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal’’

Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray.

6.5. The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar v. CIT. 223 ITR 480(MP) has held that if a party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of appeal paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 32