Shri Jagdishchandra Harkishandas Dnabuwala, Surat V. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

ITA 224/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5796 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) . . ./ I.T.A NO.224/SRT/2017 [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA HARKISHANDAS DHABUWALA, B-62, PUSHPAM RAW HOUSE, PIPLOD, VESU, SURAT 395007. [PAN: AAUPD 7331 F] VS . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT. / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT [ /ASSESSEE BY NONE. /REVENUE BY SHRI O.P.VAISHNAV CIT - DR & SMT. USHA SHROTE SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 20 . 0 4 .20 2 1 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 20 . 0 4 .202 1 /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, SURAT, HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD.CIT(A), DATED 30.08.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING PROVISION AND GENERAL STORE, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 ON 14.03.2014, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2.00 LAKHS (APPROX). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES AND SEEKING REPLY THERETO PASSED SHRI JAGDISJCHANDRA HARKISHANDAS DHABUWALA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT../ ITA NO.224/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 2 DETAILED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MADE ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.84,90,049/-, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) WAS CONFIRMED. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO IN AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND WITHOUT DISCUSSING MERIT OF THE CASE BY TAKING VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE COMPLIANCE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON FOUR OCCASIONS/DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED BY LD.CIT(A) AS UNADMITTED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES, BY TAKING VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTEREST IN PERUSING HIS APPEAL. THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO LD.CIT-DR WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE VIRTUAL PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS TO LD.SR.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (SR.DR), THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT-DR, FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON MERIT, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT WITH THE CLEAR DIRECTION TO ASSESSEE NOT TO MAKE DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE AND TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE AS WELL AS TO FURNISH NECESSARY INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. SHRI JAGDISJCHANDRA HARKISHANDAS DHABUWALA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT../ ITA NO.224/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD.DRS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUBMITS THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS SOLD HIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS HIS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS IN 27.03.2017 AND NO NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE PAN, WHICH IS HIS CURRENT ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM REPRESENTING HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE HAS NO NOTICE WAS RECEIVED FOR HEARING FIXED. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN FORM-36, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DIFFERENT ADDRESS THAN THE ADDRESS FURNISHED IN FORM-35 [APPEAL FOR BEFORE LD.CIT(A)]. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, REQUIRED FRESH HEARING ON MERIT AT THE END OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY / LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING ORDER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO PASS ORDER ON POINTS OF DETERMINATION (GROUNDS OF APPEALS), DECISION THEREIN ON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. 6. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN FORM-35, ON MERIT SHRI JAGDISJCHANDRA HARKISHANDAS DHABUWALA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT../ ITA NO.224/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 4 AS PER MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL GRANT APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL BE SENT ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE ARRAY OF PARTY OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE TO LD.CIT(A), WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND NOT TO SEEK THE ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH APRIL 2021 WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL. SD/- SD/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 20 TH APRIL, 2021 / #SGR COPY OF ORDER SENT TO:- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT