Ravirajsinh Krushnasinh Jadeja, Rajkot V. ADL,JNT,DTY,ASST.CIT, ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 281/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7087 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144; 271B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 280 & 281/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Krushnasinh Jadeja, 3 Bahrabg Wadi, Jamnagar Road, Rajkot-361001 Vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Bhuj, Kachh थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AJGPJ7152D (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) नधा रतीक ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR राज वक ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईक तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 21/05/2024 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2017-18, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (National Faceless Appeal), which in turn arise out of the separate orders passed by the assessing officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A Nos. 280 & 281/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Ravirajsinh Krushnasinh Jadeja vs. ITO 2 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that both the orders were passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, as the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A), due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee explained the regions for non- appearance before the lower authorities, by way of an affidavit, the contents of the said affidavit are reproduced below: “I, Ravindra Jadeja son of Krushansinh Jadeja residing at 3, Bahrabag wadi, Jamnagar Rajkot Road, Rajkot do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under- 1. That I have given all document and appointed authorized representative for filling of return of income tax and handling all matter of income tax including assessment, Appeals and other proceedings to Lahoti & Lahoti. Chartered Accountant, Gandhidham since I am running business in name of M/s. Krupa Petroleum, having PAN AJGPJ7152D at Plot No. D-102, Jamnagar Rajkot Road, Rajkot. 2. That our filling of income tax return was not filled and other assessment proceeding were complete ex-parte which was come to our knowledge only where we have received demand notice only. 3. After that we have received recovery notice and we realized that it was lapse on our chartered accountant's part and now request you to provide opportunity so that we can provide our complete records before your honour. I am executing this declaration to be submitted to the Income tax department. I hereby state that whatever is stated herein above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” I.T.A Nos. 280 & 281/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Ravirajsinh Krushnasinh Jadeja vs. ITO 3 3. On the other hand, ld. DR. for the Revenue submitted that assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons why he could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), despite giving sufficient opportunities by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, both the appeals may be dismissed at this stage. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12. For 2017-18, we note that it is the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271B of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee did not appear during penalty proceedings, as well as during appellate proceedings before ld CIT(A).We note that both the impugned orders are ex-parte orders, as the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A). Now, the ld Counsel for the assessee undertakes the responsibility to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and to file the relevant documents and evidences, before ld CIT(A). We also note that ld. CIT(A) has not passed the orders as per the mandate of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act i.e. ld. CIT(A) did not consider the entire facts and assessment records to adjudicate the issue. Therefore, in these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed. I.T.A Nos. 280 & 281/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2017-18 Ravirajsinh Krushnasinh Jadeja vs. ITO 4 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-05-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 22/05/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot