Ratan Chand Goel, Bahraich V. ITO-2, Bahraich

ITA 331/LKW/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4964 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM RASTOGI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.331/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ratan Chand Goel, Mohalla – Indira Nagar, Risia Bazar, Bahraich- 271875 PAN: AILPG 1104C Vs. The Income Tax Officer-II, 423-A, Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Road, Bahraich- 271801, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case the return of income was filed in the status of individual showing income under the heads ‘business’ and ‘income from other sources’ and declaring the total income at Rs.2,01,210/-. The assessee’s case was selected for Appellant by Shri Shubham Rastogi, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 17/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 29/02/2024 I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 2 scrutiny under CASS and on the basis of information received from AIR/CIB system of the Department, the assessee was required to furnish details regarding sale of land, which was valued at Rs.1,51,54,000/- for the purpose of Circle Rate. The assessee was also required to explain the source of various cash deposits made during the year. Since the assessee could not provide the relevant documentary evidences, Long Term Capital Gain was computed at Rs.1,43,82,571/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. However, the assessee’s appeal was summarily dismissed by the NFAC citing the reason that Form-35 and other relevant annexures were not available on the portal. The appeal was treated as infructuous and was dismissed as unadmitted. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal: (1) The Ld. C.I.T.(A) while dismissing the appeal failed to appreciate that Appeal was filed manually on 02.05.2016 in the Office of C.I.T. (A), Faizabad along with Form No. 35. Grounds of Appeal, Challan of Rs. 1000 /- and Statement of Facts vide receipt no. Book No. 1 Sr. No. 48. I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 3 (2) That there was a reasonable cause being Assessee is not aware of the e assessment procedure and also living in Remote Area, therefore, Assessee was not aware of issuance of notice and passing of Order. (3) That only on receiving Telephonic Calls from ITO, Bahraich for Demand. Assessee came to know of passing of order u/s 250 dated 29.08.2023 and immediately contacted his Local Counsel. Thus there was a reasonable cause for not complying the Notice issued through e-filing portal. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE (4) The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Land Sold during the year for consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/ is owned by partnership Firm M/s P. C. G. Lmt, Mallihipur Road along with other Partner signed a Sale Deed on behalf of the Firm. (5) That the addition of Rs. 1, 43 ,82,571/- being Long Term Capital Gain has wrongly been made in the hand of the Assessee as the land sold belongs to Partnership Firm M/s P.C.G. Lmt, separately Assessed to Tax. (6) The addition upheld is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by A. Ο.” 5. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the allegation in the impugned order that the assessee had not filed the appeal in Form- 35 was incorrect. Our attention was drawn to the Form of Acknowledgment of filing of appeal placed at Page 4 of the paper book, which is acknowledgment of filing of appeal in the manual format and it was submitted that the assessee cannot be held I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 4 responsible for non reflection of Form-35 on the Income Tax Portal and that the assessee’s appeal was summarily dismissed without calling for records in this regard. It was also submitted that the assessee had filed all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer and in support of the argument drew our attention to the copy of the sale-deed dated 26.07.2012 placed at pages 5 to 66 of the Paper Book and submitted that this was already filed before the Assessing Officer, and therefore, it was wrongly alleged by the Assessing Officer that no supporting documents had been filed. The ld. Authorized Representative prayed that the Assessing Officer should be directed to re-examine the documents which were already on record and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order. 6. Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the appeal being restored to the Office of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee has demonstrated with ample evidence that he had filed the requisite documents before the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also demonstrated that he had manually filed the first appeal. Therefore, on the facts of the case and keeping in mind the submissions of both I.T.A. No.331/Lkw/2023 5 the parties, we restore the file to the office of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of re-examining the issue after considering all the documents with the assessee would like to file in this regard and after giving a proper opportunity to the assessee and, thereafter, pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 29/02/2024) Sd/- Sd/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 29/02/2024 Aks Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar