Pravin Ratilal Boda, Paddhari, Dist. Rajkot V. ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 241/RJT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9646 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHKUMARPANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIMEHULRANPURA

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , राजकोटनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, RAJKOTBENCH,RAJKOT (ConductedthroughE-Court) BEFOREMsSUCHITRAKAMBLE,JUDICIALMEMBER And SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANo.241/Rjt/2022 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt.Year:2014-2015 ShriPravinRatilalBoda, KharavalVistar, At.Khambhala, Tal.Padadhari, Dist.Rajkot Gujarat-361011. PAN:AKCPB7113K Vs.TheI.T.O, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriMehulRanpura,A.R Revenueby:ShriAshishKumarPandey,Sr.DR सुिणाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:26/09/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:06/12/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: Thecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheassesseeagainst theorderoftheLd.CommissionerofIncomeTax,(Appeals)Rajkot,arisinginthe matteroforderpassedunderSection143(3)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(here- in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear2014-15. ITANo.241/Rjt/2022 A.Y.2014-15 2 2.Attheoutset,itwasnoticedthatld.CIT-Adidnotaccepttheappealfiled bytheassesseeonaccountofadefectappearinginform35whichwasduly communicatedtotheassesseebuttherewasnoresponse.AspertheLd.CIT(A), theassesseeincolumnNo.8ofform35hasspecifiedthatthetaxhasbeenpaid ontheincomeshownintheincometaxreturnwhereastherewasnoevidence providedbytheassesseeaboutpaymentoftax.Onthisreasoning,theLd.CIT(A), dismissedtheappealfiledbytheassessee. 3.AtthetimeofhearingtheLd.Counselsubmittedthattheassesseehas shownagriculturalincomeintheincometaxreturnwhichisexemptedfromtax. Thus,therewasnoquestionofshowinganypaymentoftax.AspertheLd.AR, thisfactwasverymuchappearingintheassessmentorder.Accordingly,theLd. ARprayedbeforeustoset-asidetheissuetotheLd.CIT(A)forfreshadjudication aspertheprovisionoflawonmeritwiththedirectiontoadmittheappeal. 4.Onthecontrary,theLd.DRcouldnotcontroverttheargumentadvanced bytheLd.ARfortheassessee. 5.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Onperusalofthecolumn8ofform35,containing theinformationwhethertaxpaymentmadeonthereturnedincome,wefindthat theassesseehasmentioned“Yes”fromwhichitistranspiredthattherewasatax liabilityonthepartoftheassesseewhereastheAOinhisassessmentorderhas clearlyrecordedthattheassesseehasfiledhisreturnofincomedeclaringatRs. Nilfromwhichitbecomesevidentthattherewasnotaxliabilityonthepartofthe assessee. 6.Bethat,asitmaybe,intheinterestofjusticeandfairplay,weareinclined torestoretheissuetothefileoftheLd.CIT(A)forfreshadjudicationasperthe provisionoflawafteradmittingtheappealfiledbytheassessee.Hence,the groundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowedforthestatisticalpurposes. ITANo.241/Rjt/2022 A.Y.2014-15 3 7.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebyallowedforthe statisticalpurposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton06/12/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SUCHITRAKAMBLE)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated06/12/2023 Manish,Sr.PS