MALI RAM, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 148/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5186 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 148/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI MALI RAM VILLAGE: NASANOTA TEHSIL: DUDU, SANGANER, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7 (4) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AABFR 3344 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI RAGHUVIR SINGH DAGUR, ADDL.CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/06/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /06/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A)- III, JAIPUR DATED 01-11-2010 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND NONE OF THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE ITA NO. 148/JP/2011 SHRI MALI RAM VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (4), JAIPUR . 2 UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES IN SPITE OF THE FACT T HAT NONE OF THE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE AO 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF RS. 75.50 LACS AS IT IS ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAN D. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT T HE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED BEYOND THE MUNICIPAL LIMI T CANNOT BE MADE. 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT RS. ,15.00 LACS RECEIVED ON DATED 21-02-2006 WAS RETURNED TO N EXT DAY THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE A UNEXPLAINED. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE DEPOSIT AMOUN T AS MENTIONED BY THE AO ARE ONLY RS. 79.50 LACS WHEREAS A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- WAS ADDED WITHOUT ANY BASIS TO MAKE IT ROUNDED OFF. 2.1 AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S RAISED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR A DMISSION BEFORE US UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES. 1. COPY OF IKRARNAMA NIRASTIKARAN (AGREEMENT CANCELLATION) - CANCELLATION AGREEMENT BY WAY OF SUMJHAUTA PATRA WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ITA NO. 148/JP/2011 SHRI MALI RAM VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (4), JAIPUR . 3 2. COPY OF VIKRAYA PATRA KRISHI BHOOMI - LD. CIT(A ), WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER, HAS OBSERVED THAT PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURE LAND HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTE D BY THE APPELLANT. ALTHOUGH THESE DO NOT CONSTITUTE AS PRIM ARY EVIDENCE FOR THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL YET FOR THE SAK E OF COMPLETE NESS OF THE FACTS THESE ARE SUBMITTED AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE A BOVE EVIDENCES ARE VERY VITAL AND CRUCIAL TO THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL. THESE EVIDENCES WOULD ENABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS THE ORDER EFFECTIVELY AND T HEIR ABSENCE MAY NOT UNFOLD THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY AND MAY LEAD TO MISCA RRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE RS OF AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) ARE EX-PARTE ORDERS U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 2.2 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES AND OPPOSED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES RAISED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE ACCEPTED AND ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE TO CONTEST HIS CASE FAIRLY AND JUDICIOUSLY BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE, TH E ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDI NGS. IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO. 148/JP/2011 SHRI MALI RAM VS. ITO, WARD- 7 (4), JAIPUR . 4 ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO FILE OF AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH BY CONSIDER ING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES RAISED BEFORE US AND PROVIDING THE REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 /06/2016 . SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ HKKXPUN (LALIET KUMAR) (BHAGCHAND ) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29/06/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI MALI RAM, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 7 (4), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 148/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR