SUJA RAM JAT, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 266/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5537 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 266/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SUJA RAM JAT, VILLAGE- SANJHARIA, POST.- THIKARIYA, TEH.- SANGANER, DISTRICT- JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 267/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 CHANDA RAM JAT, VILLAGE- SANJHARIA, POST.- THIKARIYA, TEH.- SANGANER, DISTRICT- JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. JAIN (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/01/2016. 2 ITA NO. 266 & 267/JP/2015 SUJA RAM JAT VS. ITO VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSE ES ON SAME ISSUE ARISE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2015 PASS ED BY THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE COMMON EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. (A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A), JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DISMISSING APPEAL ON THE GROUND THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PAID APPEAL FEES RS.1000/- ON AND BEFORE FILLING OF APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS PAID APPEAL FEE S RS.1000/- ON DATE 04/09/2014 AND 12/01/2015 BEFORE HEARING OF APPEAL. (B) THAT THE LT. CIT (A), JAIPUR HAS ACCEPTED APPEA L FEES AND REFUSED TO HEAR APPEAL. (C) THAT THE LT. CIT(A) , JAIPUR HAS NOT ADOPTED JUSTICE ORIENTED APPROACH AND FURTHER DEFEATED LEGITIMATE RIGHTS ON THE GROUND OF PROCEDURE AND TECHNICALITIES. SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A/ JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT DECIDING OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT IS:- (A) THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS SOLD WAS NOT CAPITAL ASSED AND THEREFORE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT CHARGEABLE BECAUSE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT URBAN LAND BEING BEYOND 8 K.M. FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR. 3 ITA NO. 266 & 267/JP/2015 SUJA RAM JAT VS. ITO 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST N OT DECIDING THE CASE ON MERIT IN ABSENCE OF FEES PAID BY THE ASSESS EE RS. 1000/- EACH IN BOTH THE YEARS. IN ANOTHER CASE I.E. IN THE CASE OF CHANDA RAM JAT, THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS RELA TING TO THIS ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(1), THE APPEAL MEMO WAS TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 1000/-. I T IS ALSO FACT THAT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(1), THE WORD SHALL IS MENTIONED INDICATING THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF PAYMENT OF RS.1000/- BEFORE FILING APPEAL WAS OF MANDATORY NATURE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THA T THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED CHALLAN FEE OF RS.1000/ - ON 04.09.2014 WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 26.04.2013 INDICATING THAT EVEN AFTER FILING OF APP EAL THE APPELLANT HAS NOT APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT OF PAN. AS PER THE APPELLANT THE PAN WAS ALLOTTED ON 02.08.2014 HOWEVER THE LATE ALLOTMENT OF PAN WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPLY FOR PAN EITHER DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER FILING OF APPEAL. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE CHALLAN FEE WAS NOT DEPOSIT BECAUSE OF NON 4 ITA NO. 266 & 267/JP/2015 SUJA RAM JAT VS. ITO AVAILABILITY OF PAN IS NOT CORRECT. MOREOVER IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE GUIDAN CE OF TAX ADVOCATE AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE CASE THA T DUE TO IGNORANCE OF TAX LAWS THE CHALLAN FEE WAS NOT DEPOSITED. PRIMAFACIE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE OF RS.1000/- AND THE FACT IS THAT EVEN IF THE PAN WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT TH E TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL THE SAME IS ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE APPELLANT AS HE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR PAN. AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL AS PER PROVISION S OF SEC. 249(1) OF IT ACT THEREFORE THE PRESENT APPEAL I S FOUND TO BE NONEST/NON MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATE D. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS TREATED TO BE DISMISSED . THE IDENTICAL FINDING GIVEN IN ANOTHER CASE OF CHAND A RAM JAT. 4. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN HEARD TODAY AND AR OF THE AS SESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT AS PER SECTION 249(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID FEES, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE LD CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF APPEAL EVEN THEN, HE HAS NOT D ECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE LAW WORD S HALL HAS BEEN 5 ITA NO. 266 & 267/JP/2015 SUJA RAM JAT VS. ITO USED, THEREFORE IT WAS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF ASS ESSEE TO DEPOSIT REQUISITE FEES AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE RE QUIREMENT OF LAW HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES. T HE DEFECT IS CURABLE AS THE ASSESSEES HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCES BE FORE THE LD CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFOR E, THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE LEGAL FORMALITIES TO FILE THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE BOTH THE CASES ON MERIT . ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE LD CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 ND JANUARY, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SRI SUJA RAM JAT/CHANDA RAM JAT, JAIP UR. 6 ITA NO. 266 & 267/JP/2015 SUJA RAM JAT VS. ITO 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.266 & 267/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR