Bal Krishna Patel, V. Income Tax Officer Ward-I(3),

ITA 141/JAB/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5672 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R LATHORIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: M M NEMA

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A. NO.141 /JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BEFORE S/SHRI N.S. SAINI (AM) N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM ) I.T.A. NO.141 /JAB/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 ) BAL KRISHNAN PATEL, PATEL NAGAR, SUHAGI, ADHARTAL, JABALPUR VS. ITO, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR PAN/GIR NO. : AHXPP 3332 Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.M.NEMA RESPONDENT BY : SH. D.R.LATHORIYA DATE OF HEARING : 06-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-04. 2016 O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATING FROM A N ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)- 1 JABALPUR DATED 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDE R: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL DUE TO NON- ATTENDED THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL CASE WAS FIXED ON 13/02/2014, TH E APPELLANT FILED APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION ON 31/07/2014 BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE CAUSE ASSIGN BY THE APPELLANT IS SUFFICIENT AND IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED THE APPEAL CASE, AN AFFIDAVIT I N SUPPORT OF RESTORATION APPLICATION IS FILED THE SAME HAS BEEN REJE CTED, KINDLY CONSIDERED THE RESTORATION APPLICATION AND RESTORED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2. THAT, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS, BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING TOTAL AGRICUL TURAL LAND AREA OF 2 I.T.A. NO.141 /JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 53 ACRES, OUT OF THAT THE APPELLANT LET OUT ON SIKMI A BOUT 45 ACRES LAND WHICH IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE PHOOLSAGAR, MANDLA WAS ABOU T 40 ACRES TO SHRI GIRISH CHANDROL FOR RS.5,50,000/- AND ANOTHER 5 ACRES LAND WHICH IS SITUATED AT LAMHETAGHAT, JABALPUR TO SHRI RAJU CHAKRA BARTY FOR RS.75,000/- WHICH WAS ON AGREEMENT, THE SAME DID NOT CO NSIDER. 3. THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCING GULAB FLOWER CROP ABOUT RS.8,56,162/- AND OUT OF THAT NET INCOME SHOWN AT RS. 4,88,396/- WHICH WAS AS PER THE SALES REGISTER WHICH SUPPORTING BY SALES VOU CHERS, THE SAME DID NOT CONSIDER, 4. THAT, THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AGREEMENTS MAD E BY THE APPELLANT WITH SHRI GIRISH CHANDROL AND RAJU CHAKRAWA RTY. REJECTION OF AGREEMENTS WITHOUT ANY QUERY OR INVESTIGATION MADE. T HE A.O. HAS MADE A STORY ON HIS OWN VIEW FOR REJECTION THE AGREEMEN T WHICH WAS THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS. 5. THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR AND P ROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME WAS PRODUCED ALONG-WITH SUPPORTED BILLS AND VOUCHERS, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED, THERE IS NO ANY IRREGULARITIES OR DISCREPANCI ES OR MISTAKE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. 6. THAT, THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S, NOR GIVEN ANY FINDINGS REGARDING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION O F RS.11,13.396/- IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES\OF THE, CASE. 2. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS VARIOUS GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BUT AT THE OUTSET, THE LD COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE MAINLY ARGUED ON GROUND NO.1. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT CIT(A) DISMI SSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL EX PARTE, FOR NON PROSECUTION QUA THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE WITH A 3 I.T.A. NO.141 /JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 DIRECTION TO HIM TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE HIM, ON MERIT BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER, AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AFRESH. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF CIT(A). 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) , WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL ALSO VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED THEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL FULLY CO- OPERATE AND GET THE APPEAL DECIDED BY LD CIT(A) AT AN EARLY DATE. WE OBSERVE THA T THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION QUA THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. HOWEVER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE SATISF ACTORY REASON AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRESENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) TO PUTFORTH HIS GRIEVANCE AND WE FEEL THAT THERE WAS LACHES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ESPECIALLY THE NATURE OF ADDITIONS MADE AND THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION CHALLENGING THE SAID ADDITIONS, WE HER EBY DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER AS WELL JUSTIFIABLE TO GRANT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BY RESTORING THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) BY IMPOSING COST OF RS.5,000/- ON THE ASSE SSEE, TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER BEFORE THE HONBLE M .P. HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY DUE TO NEGLIGENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AND RECEIPT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD CIT(A) THEN ONLY THE ASSESSEES CASE WOULD BE H EARD. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVAT IONS MADE IN THIS ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FULLY CO-OPERATE AND GET THIS APPEAL DECIDE D AT AN EARLY DATE. SINCE THE 4 I.T.A. NO.141 /JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 ISSUES ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION, HENCE, THE APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 /4/2016 . SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JABALPUR, DATED 6 / 4/2016 PARIDA , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT : BAL KRISHNAN PATEL, PATEL NAGAR, SUHAGI, ADHARTAL, JABALPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR 3. THE CIT(A). JABALPUR 4. CIT . JABALPUR 5. DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR. PS, ITA T, CAMP: JABALP UR