HANUMAN SINGH,KODESAR, JHUNJHUNU V. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

MA 43/JPR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, Shri Hanuman Singh, under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, against an order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench dated 19-06-2024. The application was necessitated by the assessee's absence during the original hearing, which led to an ex-parte decision. The assessee argued that they were unaware of the mandatory physical presence requirement at the hearing, despite having submitted an adjournment application. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the application, suggesting it was an attempt to review the ITAT order under the guise of a Miscellaneous Application. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity to present their case, leading to the restoration of the matter to the AO for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469898 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY; VH
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S. CHUDHARY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 43/JP/2024 (Arising out of vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.530/JP/2024) fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Shri Hanuman Singh Village & P.O. Kodesar via Bisau, Jhunjhunu cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 6 (5) Jhunjhunu LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CHTPS 9459 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.S. Chudhary, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT - VH lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/01/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Act against the order of the ITAT Jaipur Bench dated 19-06-2024 praying therein to recall its order. To this effect, the assessee also filed a brief submissions mentioning therein reason as under:- ‘’The application for adjournment was personally submitted by us on 14-06- 2024. On the date of hearing i.e. 18-06-2024, the adjournment application was cancelled with remark that the outset of hearing, none appeared. 2 M.A. NO.43/JP/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 530/JP/2024 Shri Hanuman Singh vs ITO, Ward 6(5), Jhunjhunu At the time of submitting the application for seeking adjournment we were not made aware of the fact the physical presence is mandatory on the date of hearing even though the adjournment application already submitted. Such case has not happened with us anytime earlier than this. Then the final order was passed on 19-06-2024. We are filing miscellaneous application against order issued on 19-06-2024 and request you to kindly provide us with an opportunity to rectify our mistake of physical absence on the date of hearing.’’ 2.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of ITAT Jaipur Bench (supra) praying that the ld. AR of the assessee wants to get the ITAT order reviewed in the garb of Misc. Application. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that it had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 2.3 of its order as under:- ‘’2.3 The Bench heard the ld. DR and after going through the file in the case of the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities i.e. AO and the ld. CIT(A) and thus made no compliance nor filed any explanation to the queries raised by the Revenue authorities. The Bench feels that the burden of proof lays upon the assessee and he is required to offer the explanation to the satisfaction of the Revenue authorities but it was not done by the assessee. The Bench further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) and AO passed well reasoned speaking order and after going through the same, I found no interference is required as the assessee has not rebutted the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities . In this situation, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with no order as tocosts.’’ From the submissions placed before the Bench, it appears that the case of the assessee is genuine one and thus the assessee should be given one more chance to contest his case before the Bench. 3 M.A. NO.43/JP/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 530/JP/2024 Shri Hanuman Singh vs ITO, Ward 6(5), Jhunjhunu 2.4 The Bench further noticed while hearing of the Misc Application of the assessee that in the appeal matter, the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities as the assessee had made no compliance before the lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee also prayed that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to comply with the instructions of the lower authorities and the case of the assessee be restored to the file of the AO for afresh hearing for which the ld. DR has no objection. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and before the ld. CIT(A) also. Therefore, he could not put forth his defense on merits as the address of the assessee mentioned was not his usual resident and he lives in a village, this fact is evident from the orders of the lower authority. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during 4 M.A. NO.43/JP/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 530/JP/2024 Shri Hanuman Singh vs ITO, Ward 6(5), Jhunjhunu the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.4 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the Misc. Application of the assesee is allowed and also the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 03 /02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03 /02/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Hanum Singh, Kodesar, Jhunjhunu 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(5),Jhunjhunu 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (MA No.43/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "