ANITA GARG,ALWAR V. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR

ITA 1363/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Garg, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed her appeal challenging the assessment order for the year 2011-12. The primary issue was the non-consideration of additional evidence that Anita Garg intended to submit during the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) had mistakenly noted that no such evidence was intended to be submitted, leading to the dismissal of her appeal. The Tribunal found that this was due to a clerical error and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, ensuring that the additional evidence is considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472807 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

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 Jh xxu Xkks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1363/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Anita Garg D-49, Budh Vihar Alwar 301 001 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward2 (2) Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHIPG 9448 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ankit Garg, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24 /02/2025 PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee is in appeal while challenging order dated 15-10-2024 passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] whereby her appeal challenging the assessment order dated 24-12- 2018, relating to assessment year 2011-12, has been dismissed. 2 Arguments heard. File perused. 2 ITA NO. 1363/JP/2024 ANITA GARG, ALWAR VS ITO,WARD 2(2), ALWAR 3 The only ground raised by ld. AR for the appellant is that additional evidence filed by the appellant before the ld. CIT(A) was not taken on record due to some misunderstanding, while going through para 12 of Form 35 submitted before the ld. CIT(A). 4 A perusal of impugned order would reveal that as regards Column No.12 of Form No.35, ld. CIT(A) was of the view that word‘’No’’ was written, and further that no application under Rule 46A having been filed, the additional evidence sought to be filed during the appellate proceedings could not be considered. In other words, in Form No.35, it was not mentioned that any additional evidence was sought to be produced in the appeal. 5 A perusal of Form 35 submitted in this appeal file would reveal that against Colum No.12 thereof word ‘’Yes’’ finds mentioned, meaning thereby that the appellant intended to file additional evidence in the appeal. It appears that while extracting a portion of Form 35 in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) came across and pasted said portion of Form 35 pertaining to some other appeal. Learned DR for the department also expresses so. 6 In the given situation, when additional evidences was sought to be filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), he could call upon the assessee to file appropriate application, but no such step appears to have been taken. 3 ITA NO. 1363/JP/2024 ANITA GARG, ALWAR VS ITO,WARD 2(2), ALWAR 7 Record reveals that before the AO, the assessee did not participate or comply with the notices. No satisfactory explanation has been put forth by ld.AR for the assessee for non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO. It was for the assessee to reply the notices and participate in the proceedings so as to avail of the opportunity of being heard, for the purposes of passing of Best Judgment assessment. In this situation, the matter needs to be remanded to the AO, in place of ld. CIT(A), so that proper verification of the requisite documents is carried out and there is effective adjudication of the issues involved, for the purpose of passing of assessment order afresh. Result 8 In view of the above reasons and findings, while disposing of this appeal for statistical purposes, we remit the matter to the AO for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and that too in accordance with law. 4 ITA NO. 1363/JP/2024 ANITA GARG, ALWAR VS ITO,WARD 2(2), ALWAR 9 File be consigned to record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/ 02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (xxu Xkks;y) ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 24 /02/2025 *Mishra, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Anita Garg, Alwar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(2), Alwar 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.1363/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "