Smt Sunita Shivhare, Betul V. Income Tax officer , Gwalior

ITA 25/JAB/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5067 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K HALDER
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

SUNITA SHIVHARE V. ITO ITA NO. 25/JAB/2021 (AY 2009-10) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH , JABALPUR (SMC) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.25/JAB/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SUNITA SHIVHARE, CIVIL LINES, BETUL (M.P.) [PAN: BDGPS 4272Q] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), GWALIOR (M.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. DHIRAJ GHAI, FCA RESPONDENT BY SH. S.K. HALDER, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/09/2021 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, BHOPAL (CI T(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 01/6/2021, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTEST ING HER ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 V IDE ORDER DATED 31/3/2015. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY SHRI GHA I, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AN IN LIMINE DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES OF HEARING, AND TOWARD WHICH HE WOULD TAKE THE BENCH TO THE OPERATING PART OF THE SAID ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: SUNITA SHIVHARE V. ITO ITA NO. 25/JAB/2021 (AY 2009-10) 2 4.1 GROUND NO.1:- THROUGH THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, TH E APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.16,76,357/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE WAS GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES ON 15.04.2021, 26.04.2021 AND 27.05.2021. NOBODY ATTENDED AND NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IN VIEW OF NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF APP ELLANT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, THE ADDITION OF RS.16,76,357/- IS CONFIRMED. THEREF ORE, THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4.2 GROUND NO. 2:- THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERA L IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION . MOST OF THE CITIES OF MADHYA PRADESH, HE CONTINUED, WERE UNDER LOCKDOWN DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD DUE TO COVID-19, AND FOR WHICH HE WOULD TAKE US TO THE NEWS ITEM PLACED AT PGS. 5-6 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK (TITLED AS SYNOPSIS). HIS OFFICE, AS INDEED OF OTHER COUNSEL S, WAS ALSO CLOSED, CONSTRAINING BEING INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR HI M TO HAVE RESPONDED TO THE SAID NOTICES ON HER BEHALF. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FAC T HOSPITALIZED DURING MARCH, 2021 (FOR DONATING KIDNEY TO HER HUSBAND), AND UNDE R CONVALESCENCE DURING APRIL-MAY, 2021, AND IS IN FACT EVEN TODAY RECUPERA TING. THIS EXPLAINS THE NON- RESPONDING TO THE THREE NOTICES OF HEARING REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A). HIS ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, WAS PRAYED FOR BEING SET ASIDE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THE PREC ARIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME (SOUGHT TO BE EXH IBITED THRO THE PAPER-BOOK), I.E., WITHOUT THE SAME BEING COMMUNICATED TO HIM, A ND WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT. AT THE SAME TIME, AGAIN, WITHOUT DOUBT, MADHYA PRADESH WAS UNDER SEVERE GRIP OF COVID-19 (SECOND WAVE), AND UNDER LOCKDOWN FOR MOST PART DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING SECOND WEEK OF APRIL, 2021 UP TO E ND-JUNE, 2021. IN FACT, GOVERNMENT ADVISORIES WERE CONTINUOUSLY EXHORTING P EOPLE TO STAY INDOORS UNLESS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO COME OUT, AS FOR MEDICAL URGENCY, ETC. THE MARKETS ALSO OPENED ONLY FOR LIMITED HOURS FOR ESSE NTIALS. IN FACT, THIS SITUATION SUNITA SHIVHARE V. ITO ITA NO. 25/JAB/2021 (AY 2009-10) 3 OBTAINED IN SEVERAL STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ALL THIS IS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. HOW, ONE WONDERS, COULD THE DEPARTMENT BE OBLIVIOUS TO A LL THIS, AND PROCEED TO SUMMARILY DISMISS APPEALS FOR NON-REPRESENTATION? E VEN OTHERWISE, THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE AS WELL AS THE ESSENCE OF A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER, ARE THE REASONS THAT INFORM THE SAME, WHILE THERE IS NO ADJ UDICATION ON MERITS, AS THE LAW CONTEMPLATES, IN THE INSTANT CASE. SH. HALDER, THE LD. SR. DR, COULD NOT REPLY ANY OF THE ASSERTIONS BY SH. GHAI, AS INDEED TO THE QUERIES BY THE BENCH. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DIRECTING AFRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY PER A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES BEFORE HIM. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 SD/ - (SANJA Y ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/09/2021 AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT: SMT. SUNITA SHIVHARE, CIVIL LINES, B ETUL - 460001 (M.P.) 2. THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AAYA KAR BHAWAN, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR - 474001 (M.P.) 3. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL 4. THE CIT(APPEALS)-3, BHOPAL 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. GUARD FILE // TRUE COPY //