Mr. Dinkar Vitthal Sangale, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 4, Ahmednagar

ITA 1767/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0557 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NO.1767/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MR. DINKAR VITTHAL SANGALE, C/O. M/S. SHANTILAL GANDHI, TAX CONSULTANT, 146, 1 ST FLOOR, AMBER PLAZA, STATION ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR-414001. PAN : FTCPS6159E . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4, AHMEDNAGAR. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. H. NANIWADEKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 14.02.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.03.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, PUNE DATED 22.11.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. DEVIATING FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILLED IN TIME AND THE APPEAL IS NOW FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 667 DAYS DUE TO ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON AND UNAWARE OF INCOME TAX ACT AND ITS PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- BASICALLY I AM AN AGRICULTURIST RESIDING IN VERY SMALL TOWN AND NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS NOR ACQUAINTED WITH ANY CENTRAL OR STATE GOVT. DIRECT OR INDIRECT TAXES. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ANY REVENUE LAWS. I HAVE NEVER FILED RETURN UNDER INCOME TAX ACT EARLIER OR FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITA NO.1767/PUN/2018 - 2 - DURING THE F.Y. 2010-11, I HAVE SOLD MY ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN CASH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK A/C. WHICH WERE MORE THAN RS.10,00,000/- AND HENCE I RECEIVED NOTICES FROM ITO WARD 4, AHMEDNAGAR, AS I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THESE NOTICES WERE SERVED & HENCE I APPOINTED A LOCAL PERSON, WHO IS INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER, MR. DHATRAK, I HAVE HANDED OVER WHATEVER NOTICES RECEIVED BY ME ISSUED BY THE ITO TO THE SAID ITP. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT HE NEVER APPEARED BEFORE A.O., WHICH RESULTED INTO EXPARTE ORDERS. THE 1 ST APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A) HE DID NOT PRODUCED THE CORRECT FACTS AND NOT PROPERLY REPRESENT THE CASE WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED INTO DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. THE APPEAL ORDERS SERVED ON ME WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM FOR FURTHER ACTION, HOWEVER HE NEVER INFORMED ME NOR TAKEN ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION TO FILE 2 ND APPEAL. NOR MADE ME AWARE ABOUT MY CASE AND CONSEQUENCES. ONLY I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THESE FACTS WHEN I RECEIVED NOTICES FROM ITO FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES AND IMMEDIATELY APPROACHED TO ANOTHER TAX CONSULTANT PREPARED PAPERS FOR FILING OF 2 ND APPEAL, WHICH IS FILED ALONGWITH THIS APPLICATION. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE REASONS THEREOF, I AM OF THE OPINION THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED AND PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 4. WITHOUT GOING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE SAME IS EX-PARTE ORDER MADE U/S 144 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DUE TO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE ME, LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SAME FACTS AS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO FILED THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE ME, I FIND THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THEREFORE, I ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE WOULD MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE ITA NO.1767/PUN/2018 - 3 - LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLEADED FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RIGHT OF FILING THE APPEAL IS GRANTED BY THE STATUTE TO THE ASSESSEE-TAXPAYERS. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO INVOKE THE SAID RIGHT AND PAID THE APPEAL FEES IN THIS REGARD CONVEYING HIS SERIOUSNESS OF PURSUING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, I REMAND ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 01 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 01 ST MARCH, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-2, PUNE; 4. THE PR. CCIT, PUNE; 5. , , - / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE