SHRI SURAJ NAVLAKHA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 195/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1677 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVANGI SAMDHANI CAS
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 195/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. SURAJ NAVALAKHA D-2 NANDNAM APARTMENT, TILAK MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN VS. I.T.O., WARD-6(4), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAYPN3113B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI & MS. SHIVANGI SAMDHANI (CAS) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROSHANTA MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/04/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/06/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 13/11/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING WITHOUT ANY BASIS ITA NO. 195/JP/18 SURAJ NAVALKHA VS ITO 2 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS, MADE BY THE LD.AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,95,500/- U/S. 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.1,95,500/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 3. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. AO HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER SANCTION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INCOME. THE A.O. GOT INFORMATION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ACCORDINGLY, AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS, THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LOAN OF RS. 1,95,500/- FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND IN SUPPORT THEREOF AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED CONFIRMATION, ACCORDINGLY, HE ITA NO. 195/JP/18 SURAJ NAVALKHA VS ITO 3 ADDED THE AMOUNT IN ASSESSEES INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT GRANTED AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY DISMISSING THE SAME. FROM THE RECORD IT APPEARS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE DETAILS IF ANY REQUIRED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ (RAMESH C SHARMA) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 TH JUNE, 2019 ITA NO. 195/JP/18 SURAJ NAVALKHA VS ITO 4 *PP, SPS VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SURAJ NAVALKHA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O. WARD 6(4), 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. 195/JP/18) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR