SANGEETA GOEL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 196/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2034 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMAADDL CIT DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 196/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. SMT. SANGEETA GOEL, 41-A, BHAGAT VATIKA, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABTPG 9245 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA(ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/06/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 23.12.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THUS THE ORDER SO PASSED IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED B6Y A/R OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY DENIED OF GIVING ANY POW ER OF ATTORNEY IN THE NAME OF A/R TO AUTHORIZE HIM TO ATTEND HER CASE , THEREFORE ORDER SO PASSED BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY UNAUT HORIZED PERSON DESERVED TO HOLD BAD IN LAW. 2.1 THAT, THE LD. AO HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IN HER PREVIOUS REPLIES THE STATED THAT HER CA OR A/R HAS SUBMITTED WRONG DOCUMENTS/XEROX IN SUPPORT OF HIS REPLIES, THUS ORD ER SO PASSED DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 2 ITA NO. 196/JP/2017 SMT. SANGEETA GOEL, JAIPUR. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LEGAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,96,500/- MADE BY LD. AO U/S 68 BY ALLEGING THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME ARBITRARI LY. APPELLANT PRAYS ADDITION OF RS. 37,96,500/- CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3.1 THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT A PPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF SALE DEED, BI LLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH TRULY EXPLAINS THE SOURCES DEPOSIT CASH OF RS . 37,96,500/-, THUS ADDITION SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT(A) AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,6 8,000/- MADE BY LD. AO ALLEGEDLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOM E ON THE BASIS OF REPLIES MADE BY A/R WHO HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TESTIFY FOR ASSESSEE AND FURTHER BY NOT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSE SSEE OF BEING GETTING HEARD, THUS ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- MADE PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34, 56,400/- MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS JUST ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION BASIS AND FURTHER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THUS ADDITION OF RS. 34,56,400/- MAY PL EASE BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELE TE, AMEND OR ABANDON THE GROUND OF THIS APPEAL AT THE TIME FOR BEFORE TH E ACTUAL HEARING OF THE CASE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO LAST DAY OF HEARING I.E. ON 02.05.2017 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE REMAINED PRESENT NOR ANY APPLICATION IS FILED. THER EFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 3 ITA NO. 196/JP/2017 SMT. SANGEETA GOEL, JAIPUR. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF JUNE 2017. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 29/06/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. SANGEETA GOEL, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2 ), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 196/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO. 196/JP/2017 SMT. SANGEETA GOEL, JAIPUR.