Veeresh Ashokumar Sikkedesai , Gadag V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2 , Gadag

ITA 3301/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4297 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TSHERING ONGDA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRINALINI R
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 3 3 0 1 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 SHRI VEERESH ASHOKKUMAR SIKKEDESAI, GADAG ROAD, P.O. ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, GADAG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. PAN: CCXPS9591P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, GADAG. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. MRINALINI .R, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TSHERING ONGDA, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 .0 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 2 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HUBBALLI DATED 26.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAX EFFECT RELATING TO EACH GROUND OF APPEAL (SEE NOTE BELOW) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REPLACEMENT OF COST OF ACQUISITION @ RS.32,708/- AS AGAINST RS.1,00,000/- CLAIMED AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. RS. 2,48,962/- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT PROPERLY AND THERE IS NO CASE TO -DO- ITA NO. 3301/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.32,708/- AND WHOLE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS OPPOSED TO LA W. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WRITTENSUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. -DO- 4. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER -DO- 5. THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. -DO- 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE BE PLEASED TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, A QUE RY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO HOW MANY DATES WERE FIXED BY CIT(A) FOR HEARING. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR OF ASSESSEE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PA RA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SHE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT ALTHOUGH SEVEN DATES OF HEARING WERE FIXED BY CIT(A) ON 1) 22.12.2016, 2) 30.01.2018, 3) 05.04.2018, 4) 23.04.2018, 5) 21.05.2018, 6) 15.06.2018 & 7) 28.08 .2018 BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON RESIDING IN A VILLAGE AND HENCE, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR APP EARING BEFORE CIT (A). SHE GAVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTO RED BACK TO CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE WILL DEFINITELY APPEAR BEFORE CIT (A) THIS TIME. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WER E PROVIDED BY CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDE D TO ASSESSEE. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND HE HAS FIXED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 7 DATES AND EXCEPT ON ONE DATE I.E. 23.04.2018 W HEN THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, ON ALL OTHER DATES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 3301/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 NEITHER APPEARED NOR MADE ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNME NT. BUT CONSIDERING THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE PERS ON RESIDING IN A VILLAGE, I FEEL IT PROPER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, I ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THIS FACT THAT LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING THAT IF THE MA TTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION, THE ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A). HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER B ACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS, NO ADJUDICATION ON MERIT IS CALLED FOR AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.