DWARKA PRASAD SHARMA,KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

ITA 1455/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dwarka Prasad Sharma, who was assessed for a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 33,00,000 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, resulting in a total income of Rs. 44,44,940. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, confirming the assessment order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jaipur, after considering the assessee's non-compliance and the department's efforts to provide opportunities for hearing, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, imposing costs on the assessee to ensure seriousness in compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469917 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY; THR. V.C
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV HARSH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 142(1); 250

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 xks;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. 1455/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dwarka Prasad Sharma 118 1st Floor, Furniture Market Shopping Centre, Kota. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BONPS2623R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Saurav Harsh, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT (Thr. V.C). Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :27/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . On 29.3.2022, Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi, passed assessment order relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17, thereby made addition of Rs. 33,00,000/-having regard to Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee and computed total income of the assessee at Rs.44,44,940/-. 2. The assessee felt dissatisfied with the assessment order and as such challenged the same by way of appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 2 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 3. Said appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.10.2024, and as a result the assessment order was confirmed. 4. Hence, this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 5. Arguments heard. File perused. 6. Learned AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission i.e. for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer. 7. Learned DR for the department has no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, but, she has highlighted the conduct of the assessee in the assessment proceedings and at the appellate stage. She has pointed out that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in connection with the assessment proceedings, and as such, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order. Further, it has been pointed out that the assessee-appellant failed to participate even in the appellate proceedings despite notices, and as such, 3 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the assessment order. Learned DR has thus submitted that while remanding the matter, the above referred to conduct of the assessee must be taken into consideration, as by not participating in the proceedings there he wasted the efforts made by the department in getting notices served on the assessee so as to provide him ample opportunities, and then by not assisting the authorities below in passing the Best Judgment as regards liability of tax. 8. Learned AR for the appellant does not dispute the facts pointed out by Learned DR which reveal the conduct of the assessee in remaining non compliant not only in the assessment proceedings, but also in the appellate proceedings. In this regard, he has only submitted that the appellant is 80 years old person not acquainted with the procedures of law. 9. Records reveals that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.3.2021; notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 22.6.2021 and 15.3.2022, but there was no response from the side of the assessee, what to say of filing of any details or documents. 4 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 10. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has mentioned that 3 notices were issued to the appellant under section 250 of the Act. These were issued on 19.9.2024, 23.9.2024 and 30.9.2024. Date of compliance was 25.9.2024, 30.9.2024 and 7.10.2024. As against the first mentioned two notices, the appellant sought adjournment in the appeal. As regards the third notice, the appellant remained non compliant. All this shows that the department took steps so as to provide reasonable opportunities to the appellant of being heard before passing the 2 orders, but the assessee neither appeared nor submitted any details or evidence before the lower authorities. Simply because the appellant is claiming himself to be a senior citizen of about 80 years of age, does not absolve him of the negligence in not participating in the assessment proceedings and then in pursuing the very appeal filed by him. 11. In litigation, each party is entitled to be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. By providing opportunity to file reply, details or documents, the authorities abide by the principles of natural justice. Wwhen several notices are issued to a party, but said party miserably fails to comply with the directions, non appearance and non compliance by the 5 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO party, unless explained by cogent reasons, would militate much against the honest conduct of said party. 12. With non appearance and non compliance of the directions issued by the department or the Appellate Authority, such a negligent party not only fails comply with any to resort to the lawful procedure and remedies, but also deprives the concerned authorities of the valuable assistance sought from him for effective adjudication of the matter. 13. At the same time, in suchlike matters, involving serious issues, Best Judgment needs to be based on relevant, admissible, cogent and convincing material, but, in its absence, even though due to failure on the part of the assessee, judicial conscious confronts the concerned with various factors, including as to what should be done to deliver justice in the given matter. 14. In this case too, even though the assessee was negligent in non appearance and non participation in the proceedings before the authorities below, having regard to the issues involved, in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. 15. Then, the question arises as to how to balance the things, when on the one hand the department took steps to provide reasonable 6 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO opportunities to the assessee of being heard, but, he was reluctant even to appear before them, what to say of furnishing reply or documents or requisite information. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to burden the assessee with costs of Rs.8,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Result 16. As a result, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter is remanded back to the files of Assessing Officer with the direction to make fresh assessment after providing only one opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Assessee to produce receipts in proof of deposit of costs, before the Assessing Officer, before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27/03/2025 7 ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024 Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Dwarka Prasad Sharma, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1455/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "