SHRI MAHESH SHARMA HUF, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 211/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8658 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B 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. 211/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI MAHESH SHARMA, HUF 1 & 2, KIRTI NAGAR-II, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAEHM 1384 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/07/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 07.11.2017 OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE H EARING OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED COMPLETING THE PROCEEDINGS EX-PAR TE. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND ITA NO. 211/JP/2018 MAHESH SHARMA HUF VS. ITO 2 AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS BEING UNJUSTIFIED. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF T HE LD. AO IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 54F OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 26,88,809. TH E ACTION OF THE ID. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRA RY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 26,88,809. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE L D. AO IN ASSESSING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 20,600 UNDE R INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT (A) I S ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 20,600. 2. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED EX- PARTE ORDER AND WITHOUT GIVING AN APPROPRIATE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER LISTED FOR HEARING ON 12.12.2016 AND THEREA FTER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.10.2017 WHICH I S AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN 10 MONTHS. HE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SINCE 31.10.2017 WAS THE LAST DATE ON FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AN D THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSY IN TAX AUDIT WORK DUE TO THE LAST DATE ON FILING THE ITA NO. 211/JP/2018 MAHESH SHARMA HUF VS. ITO 3 RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 26.10.2017 AND THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED E X-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE PREOCCUPAT ION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND BUSY IN HIS PROFESSIO NAL WORK OF TAX AUDIT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE MA Y BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). HE HAS THUS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE REC ORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED AS MANY AS 11 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED ON 5 OCCASIONS AND SOUGHT ADJOURNM ENT ON THE REMAINING 6 DATES OF HEARING. THUS THE CONDUCT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS NON COOPERATIVE AND TO AVOID THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER FILING THE APPEAL. SHE HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO GRANT OF ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER WAS THE DEDUCTION OF CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT DENIE D BY THE AO FOR ITA NO. 211/JP/2018 MAHESH SHARMA HUF VS. ITO 4 WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SI MILARLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 20,600/- WAS ALSO FOR WANT OF NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCE. TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON ATTENDANCE AND NON FU RNISHING OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS HIS AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE WAS BUSY IN HIS PROFESSIONAL WORK OF TAX AUDIT IN THE M ONTH OF OCTOBER AS THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN WAS EXPIRING ON 3 1.10.2017. WE FIND THAT ONCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN 10 MONTHS AS AGAINST THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING WHICH WERE WITHIN THE GAP OF LESS THAN ONE MONTH THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WA S DENIED FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAIN ED THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE B UT HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME DUE TO THE REASONS AS EXPLAINED F OR NON APPEARANCE. HAVING CONSIDERED THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FO R GRANTING ONE MORE ITA NO. 211/JP/2018 MAHESH SHARMA HUF VS. ITO 5 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DEC IDING THE SAME AFRESH ORDER ON MERITS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/07/2020. 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:- 20/07/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI MAHESH SHARMA, HUF, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-6(2), 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. 211/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR