SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

ITA 188/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7253 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 69A; 139(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,SMC 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.188 &189/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI PROP. M/S SAINI SERVICE STATION, TEHSIL- JAMWA RAMGARH, JAIPUR-303109. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AJXPS 0725 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/08/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/08/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR BOTH DATE D 22.01.2019 ARISING FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144//147 & AND U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE HEARING OF THE APPE AL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS:- ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 2 ITA NO. 188/JP/2019 (ASSESSEES GROUND) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL OF ASSESS EE IN LIMINE SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT APPEAL WAS FILED BELATED LY. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS DUE TO BONA F IDE REASONS WHICH WERE DULY EXPLAINED AND THUS THE DELAY DESERV ED TO BE CONDONED. 1.1 THAT LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY MENTIONING THE D ATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER AS 02.02.2017, WHEN THE ORDER WAS SERVED O N 25.09.2016. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DATE OF SERVIC E OF CERTIFIED ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE WAS 02.02.2017 AS THE ORIGINA L ORDER ALLEGED TO BE SERVED ON ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND FURTHER SO, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF MISLEADING THE DEPARTMENT AS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY MENTIONED IN F ORM 35 THAT THE APPEAL AS BEING FILED AFTER A DELAY AND ALSO SU BMITTED DETAILED REASONS FOR DELAY IN THE APPEAL MEMO. APPELLANT PRA YS THAT SUCH REMARKS BY LD.CIT(A) BEING UNREASONABLE DESERVE TO BE ROLLED BACK AND THE DELAY BEING GENUINE DESERVE TO BE COND ONED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMEN T COMPLETED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHERE NO NOTICE U/S 148 WAS EVER SERVED UPON / RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AP PELLANT PRAYS THAT SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED ARE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC 148 OF THE ACT, AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THUS THE CONSEQUENT O RDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2.1 THAT LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT REASONS WERE RECORDED BASED ON INCORRECT FACT THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, T HOUGH WAS DULY FILED. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE INVOCATION OF REASSESSMENT ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 3 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED/ ANN ULLED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,54,434/- TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE BY INVOKING PROV ISIONS OF SEC 69A OF THE ACT, BY HOLDING THE SAME AS MADE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED . APPELLANT PRAYS THAT, THE SAME THUS DESERVES TO BE DELETED; 3.1 THAT ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE MATTER , LD.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,54,434/- MADE BY LD.AO BY ALLEGING THE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAIN ED WHEN HE HAS HIMSELF HAD DULY VERIFIED AND ACCEPTED THE SOUR CE OF SUCH DEPOSITS AS BEING SALE PROCEEDS FROM BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SUCH ADDITION BEING MADE PURELY ON ASSUMPTION BASIS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE MATTER THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 69,5 97/- MADE BY ALLEGING THE SAME TO BE UNDISCLOSED INTEREST FROM S AVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN IN FACT NO SUCH ENTRY WAS FOUND IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SUCH ADDITION BEING ABSOLUTELY BASELESS DESERVES TO BE D ELETED. 189/JP/2019 (ASSESSEES GROUND) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMIN E ARBITRARILY SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT APPEAL WAS FILED BELATED LY. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS DUE TO BONA F IDE REASONS WHICH WERE DULY EXPLAINED AND THUS THE DELAY DESERV ED TO BE CONDONED. 1.1 THAT LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY MENTIONING T HE DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER AS 02.02.2017, WHEN THE PENALTY OR DER WAS ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 4 SERVED ON 25.09.2016. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DATE OF SERVICE OF CERTIFIED ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE WAS 02.02.2017 A S THE ORIGINAL ORDER ALLEGED TO BE SERVED ON ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND FURTHER SO, THE RE WAS NO QUESTION OF MISLEADING THE DEPARTMENT AS, THE ASSES SEE HAD DULY MENTIONED IN FORM 35 THAT THE APPEAL AS BEING FILED AFTER A DELAY AND ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILED REASONS FOR DELAY IN THE APPEAL MEMO. APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SUCH REMARKS BY L D.CIT(A) BEING UNREASONABLE DESERVE TO BE ROLLED BACK AND TH E DELAY BEING GENUINE DESERVE TO BE CONDONED. 2. THAT ON FACT AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD .CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY IMPOSED BY ID. AO, WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S.271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED WITHOUT SPECIFYI NG THE LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY WAS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED. THIS B EING AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND IN VIOLATION TO W ELL- SETTLED PREPOSITIONS OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. AP PELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PENALTY ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED /SET ASIDE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,41,271/- U/S 271(1)(C) LEVIED BY LD. AO ON THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND REASON. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE AFTER REJECTING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULL Y EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS DISEASES AND FINALLY HAD PARALYSIS ATTACK I N THE MONTH OF JULY, ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 5 2015 AND HE WAS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT AND BED RES T FOR LONG TIME. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE S UFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) H OWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APP EALS IN LIMINE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS WELL AS 2013-14 THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E APPEALS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN ITA NO. 1289 & 1290/JP/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.04.2019 HAS CONSID ERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY DECLINED BY THE LD. C IT(A) AND HAS CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. C IT(A). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CITI(A) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY A FTER NOTING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISLED THE LD. CIT(A) BY GIVI NG INCORRECT FACTS. THUS, THE LD. DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS W ELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE WERE DELAY OF 308 DAYS AN D 127 DAYS RESPECTIVELY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE IS 71 YEARS OLD PERSON AND HE WAS SUF FERING WITH VARIOUS DISEASES INCLUDING BP, SUGAR AND PARALYSIS ATTACK SINCE JULY 2015 AND HE WAS UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT OF ABO VE DECEASES AND HE WAS COMPLETE BED REST SINCE JULY 20 15 TO JANUARY 2017. HE WAS NOT AT BUSINESS PREMISES AND H E WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT DELIVERY OF ORDER AND COULD NOT RECEIVE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS TRUE FACTS THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2008-09 FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. DURING THE TREATMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOLE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE IN TENSION ABOU T SURVIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE ALSO NOT AWARE ABOUT INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY ONE SON AND HE WAS DOING CARE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF DOCTOR AND BY CONSULTING WITH VARIOUS DOCTORS. FAMILY OF THE A SSESSEE WERE IN TENSION WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED PARALYSIS ATT ACK AND THEY WERE PRAYING TO GOD FOR ASSESSEE'S SURVIVAL. PLEASE FIND ATTACHED HEREWITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE O F DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA, MEDICAL OFFICER OF SAMUDAYIK SAWASTH YA KENDRA, JAMAWARAMGARH, JAIPUR AND MRI BRAIN REPORT OF SANTO KBA DURLABHJI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL REPORT OF V AIBHAV IMAGING CENTRE. AFTER GETTING TREATMENT FROM HOSPITAL, THE ASSESSE E VISITED TO INCOME TAX OFFICE AND HE CAME TO KNOW THAT ASSESSME NT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE HAVE BEEN SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON DATED 30/01/2017, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE LD AO THA T HE WAS HOSPITALISED AND NOT WELL AND HE WAS NOT AWARE ABOU T DELIVERY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. IF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAD DELIVERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SOMEONE IN PETROL PUMP THAN IT CANNOT TREATED AS SERVICE/ DELIVERY OF ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT AUTHORISED TO ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE AND ORDERS ON HIS BEHALF SO IT IS WRONG AND IN JUSTICE BY ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 7 SAYING THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE NOTICE AND ORDERS MUST BE SERVED TO HIM ONLY UNLESS HE AUTHORISED TO SOMEONE. IT IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND DEPARTMENT CANNOT DELIVERED TO SOMEONE ELSE. FURTHER ON DATED 30/01/2017, THE ASSE SSEE APPLIED TO THE ITO WARD 7(4), JAIPUR FOR COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BY DEPOSITING FEE OF RS 100/-. ON DATED 02/02 /2017, HE RECEIVED COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE AY 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY CONSULT WITH CA AND FILED THE APPEAL ON DATED 01/03/2017 BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT IS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING ORDERS. THEREFORE, YOU ARE HUMBLE REQUEST ED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY OF FILING THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING VALID REASON WHICH WAS BEYOND HIS CONTRO L. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECLINED THE CONDONE OF DELAY BY NOTING THE FACTS THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 2 9.03.2016 AND NOT ON 02.02.2017 AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RE LEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 IS AS UNDER:- 3. I CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONDONATION DELAY AP PLICATION I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT MISLEAD THE REVENUE MENTION ING THE SERVICE DATE OF DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO. 35 AS 02/ 02/2017 WHICH IS WRONG. THE DEMAND NOTICE ON THE APPELLANT SERVED ON 29.03.2016. IT SHOWS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT IS THAT HE CONCEALED THE FACTS AND AFTER THOUGHT HE MA DE THE STORY FOR DELAY OF 308 DAYS. THESE FACTS PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE CAUSE WHICH PREVENT THE APPELLANT TO FIL E THE APPEAL IN TIME. THEREFORE I REJECTED THE CONDONATIO N DELAY PETITION AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT ADMISSION S TAGE. ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 8 THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT BECAUSE OF THE DISCREPANCY I N MENTIONING THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF DEMAND NOTICE AS ON 02.02.2017 T HE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I N BOTH THE APPEALS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ALLEGED SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICES MAY BE SERVED AT THE WORKING PLACED OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT TO THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS EXP LAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY AS HE WAS SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS DISEASES AND HAD AN ATTACK OF PARALYSIS AND UNDER TREATMENT FOR LONG TIME. THE REFORE, AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF DELAY A LENI ENT VIEW OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THE COORDINATE BENCH THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH WAS DECLINE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ARISING FROM THE PENALTY LEV IED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.04.2019 IN ITA NO. 1289 & 1290/JP/2018 HAS HELD IN PARA 3 AND 4 ARE AS UNDER:- 3. THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APP EALS ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- THE APPELLANT WAS SUFFERING WITH VARIOUS DISEASES INCLUDING BP, SUGAR AND PARALYSIS ATTACK SINCE JULY 2015 AND HE W AS UNDER DOCTOR TREATMENT OF ABOVE DISEASE AND WAS ON BED RE ST SO HE COULD NOT RECEIVED PERSONALLY NOTICES, ORDER FROM T HE DEPARTMENT. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT DEPARTMENT WAS SENT THE NOT ICES AND ORDER ON THE ADDRESS OF BUSINESS PREMISES BUT DUE T O BED REST AT ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 9 HOME., THE APPELLANT COULD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICES AND ORDERS. THE NOTICES AND ORDER MAY BE RECEIVED BY HIS STAFF OR BY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BUT THEY COULD NOT APPRECIATE THE PR IORITY OF THE NOTICES AND ORDERS. MOREOVER WHOLE FAMILY MEMBERS W ERE SUFFERING IN TENSION DURING THE PARALYSIS ATTACK TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DEMAND OF INCO ME TAX ON 30/01/2017 WHEN HE RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT BANK ACCOUNT SEIZE AND AT ONCE HE DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH PROF ESSIONAL AND ON DATED 31/01/2017 APPLIED TO THE ITO WAR 7(4), JA IPUR FOR TRUE COPIES OF ORDERS ON DATED 02/02/2017 FROM ITO. NOW THE APPELLANT IS FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR W ITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE ORDER. SO YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING REASON BEYON D HIS CONTROL AND DUE TO SICKNESS OF PARALYSIS ATTACK, RE GULAR BP AND SUGAR, HE COULD NOT SUBMITTED APPEAL WITHIN TIME. 4. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS DISEASES AND THEREFORE NEITHER COULD ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR COULD APPOINT THE ADVOCA TE OR C.A TO REPRESENT THE CASE. HIS SON SHRI SURENDRA SAINI HAD ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS, WHO WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS AND HAD LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEES SON ATTENDED OFFICE IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO HIM AND REMAINING NOT ICES AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WERE NEVER SERVED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144/147 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON DATED 14/03/2016 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,3 6,120/- WITHOUT SERVING NOTICES AND WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFIC IENT OPPORTUNITY. AS THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE APPELLANT HENCE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON DATED 02/02/2017, THE AS SESSEE APPLIED FOR TRUE COPIES OF NOTICES AND ASSESSMENT O RDERS AND FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, THEREFOR E, PROPER COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS NOTICES COULD NOT BE MADE. IN THIS CONNECTION MEDICAL PAPERS REGARDING VARIOUS AILMENT S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ENCLOSED, WHICH HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY ME. ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 10 THEREFORE, IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERTEST OF JUSTICE, I CONDONE THE DELAY ( OF 125 DAYS) IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE MATTER/APPEALS AFRESH ON MERITS/MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR DER. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 308 DAYS AND 127 DAYS RESPECTIVELY IN FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERITS THEREFORE, THE MATTER S ARE SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF TH E SAME ON MERITS AFTER GIVING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AS SESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/08/2020. 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:- 25/08/2020. ITA NO.188 & 189/JP/2019 SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI VS. ITO 11 * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 188 & 189/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR