Anita Jangid Alias Sonia Jangid, Jodhpur V. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

ITA 24/JODH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6600 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 24/JODH/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) SMT. ANITA JANGID ALIAS SONIA JANGID, JODHPUR VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AWBPA1647A REVENUE BY SH. P.K. SINGI, DR ASSESSEE BY SH RAJENDRA JAIN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 02.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.05.2019 O R D E R PER N. K. SAINI, V.P. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-2, UDAIPUR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD IN FACTS. 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING VAL IDITY OF ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LD. A O HAD NOT COMPLIANCE THE PROVISION OF THE LAW. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADD ITION OF RS.1,91,601/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING VAR IOUS OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL/INVESTIGATION TO A PPELLANT AND ALSO PROVIDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES ON WHOSE STATEMENTS RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED IN IMPUGN ED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE FINDING SO MADE I S IN DISREGARD OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS VITIA TED. 5. THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO R AISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 6. THE PETITIONER PRAYS FOR JUSTICE & RELIEF. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZUR E OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT' THE ACT' ] WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MOHAN LAL SUTHAR & SHRI RAM K ISHORE JANGID (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE) ON 15 & 16.12.2009 AND CE RTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND ON THE BASIS O F WHICH NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RES PONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.11.2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SOME PROPERTIES AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 3 S. NO. NAME OF SELLER DETAILS OF ASSET DATE OF PURCHASE SALE CONSIDERATION +STAMP DUTY (RS.) SHARE OF SMT. ANITA (RS.) 1 SH. KISHANLAL AND OTHERS KHASRA NO. 913, POKARAN 14 BEEGHA 07 BISWA 29.08.2005 2,00,000+11,100= 2,11,100/- L/3 RD RS. 70,367/- 2. SH. KISHANLAL AND OTHERS KHASRA KHASRA NO. 913, POKARAN 14 BEEGHA 07 BISWA AND NO. 914, POKARAN 9 BEEGHA 9 BISWA 29.08.2005 1,00,000+ 10,200 = 1,10,200/- 1/3 RD RS. 36,734 3 SH. DAULAL KHASRA NO. 1806/915 7 BISWA 5 BISWA 08.12.2005 80,000+4,500= 84,500/- 100% RS. 84,500 TOTAL` 1,91,601/ - ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS, BALANCE SHEET ETC. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,91,601/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND SUSTAINED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE ALSO MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO BE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING OF THE CASE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEITHER SOUGHT AD JOURNMENT OR DID NOT RESPOND. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASS ESSEE RELATING TO THE 4 INVESTMENTS, IF ANY, MADE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. SR SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DE CIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. SHE MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER THAT NOTICE WERE ISSUED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SERVED UP ON HER. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,91,601/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED AN Y SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE SAID AMOUNT. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ANY EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT IF ANY, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F THE FACTS DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5 TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02.05.2019) SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED :02. 05.2019 .. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , ! , $ / DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. ' / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR