SMT. RAMESHWARI KULDEEP, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1265/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7517 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH AGARWAL CA SM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1265/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. RAMESHWARI KULDEEP, 14, KESHAV NAGAR, MEENO KI DHANI, CHARAN NADI, 200 FEET BYPASS, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BASPR 5696 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (SCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/01/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 200 7-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX PARTE, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WHIC H IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,45,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOTS AS UNEXP LAINED INCOME. APPELLATE PRAYS ADDITION SO CONFIRMED WAS NOT IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ITA 1265/JP/2018_ RAMESHWARI KULDEEP VS ITO 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELE TE, AMEND OR ABANDON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE EX P ARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSE D THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE CASE OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PENDING BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS DULY ATTENDED WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECI DED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFUSION BECAUSE IN THE APPEA L OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DULY ATTENDED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AND HER REPRESENTATIVE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH THE CASES ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHE R AS THE ISSUES IN BOTH THE CASES WERE IDENTICAL AND COMMON. HENCE, HE HAS P LEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PER SON HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OBJE CTED TO THE GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED EX PARTE U/S 144 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WHEN NOBODY HAS APPEARE D DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED AT ITA 1265/JP/2018_ RAMESHWARI KULDEEP VS ITO 3 ALL THREE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT OUT OF SIX DATES ON WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON FIRST THREE OCCASIONS AND THEREAFTER DID NOT APPEAR NOR FILED A NY ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GIVING THREE MORE OPP ORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS DECIDED THIS APPEAL EX PARTE WHEN NOBO DY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A CASE OF HABITUAL DE FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ON THE FIRST THREE HEARINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNME NTS WHICH WAS GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSE E DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUBSEQUENT THR EE HEARINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEA L WHILE PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUES ON MERITS BUT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT O F ANY EXPLANATION AS WELL AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON SOME OCCASIONS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO APPEAR ON THREE OCCASIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE THE MATTER WAS ALREADY ADJOURNED ON THREE ITA 1265/JP/2018_ RAMESHWARI KULDEEP VS ITO 4 OCCASIONS, THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS V ERY WELL AWARE ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND TH E SUBSEQUENT NON- APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AMOUNTS TO GROSS N EGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCU SSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBJECT TO CO ST OF RS. 2,500/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 TH JANUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. RAMESHWARI KULDEEP, JAIPUR. ITA 1265/JP/2018_ RAMESHWARI KULDEEP VS ITO 5 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1265/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR