SURESH KUMAR GOYAL, JAIPUR V. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

ITA 367/JPR/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-07-2022 concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 1,07,90,700 to the appellant's income, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis. The appellant argued that the order was passed without proper consideration of his adjournment requests and was against the principles of natural justice. The tribunal noted that the appellant had sought multiple adjournments but failed to submit necessary responses or submissions, leading the ld. CIT(A) to decide based on available documents. However, the tribunal found that the notice of hearing did not specify it as the last opportunity for the appellant, which warranted a remand for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108473 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2006
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80IA; 13

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 367/JP/2022 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 367/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal 501,Unique Sanghi Apartment Durgapura, Jaipur – 302 018 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-6 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADJPG 2142 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Shri Rajat Choudhary, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/12/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13 /12/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-07-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The order passed by the ld.CIT(A) )NFAC) Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.s1,07,90,700/- on 2 ITA NO. 367/JP/2022 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR account of cash deposit to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO was on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act, 1961. But the ld. CIT(A) passed the order by confirming the addition on account of cash deposit on ex-parte basis is wrong, illegal, totally baseless and without the relevant provision of the law, the judicial pronouncements. So in these circumstances, it is requested that cost may be imposed on the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for passing such illegal and baseless order. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) by passing an ex-parte order, without considering the adjournment request made by appellant and without in the hearing notice that this is the last opportunity provided to appellant. So, the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and facts in making addition on account of Rs.5,700/- on account of not allowing exempted income under the head business and profession, kindly allow the same. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and facts by levying penalty u/s 234A, B and C on account of delay in filing return of income. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without considering the adjournment request made by the assessee and without mentioning in the notice of hearing as to the last opportunity provided to the assessee for which the assessee is deprived off to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on merit. It is further 3 ITA NO. 367/JP/2022 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR prayed that the assessee may be provided one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) on merit by submitting the relevant documents/evidence/ written submission concerning the case. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and simultaneously objected to the prayer of the ld. of the assessee. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is observed that the assessee has sought six times adjournment, however, the assessee refrained from submitting response/ submission during the appellate proceedings. In the given circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) had no other option except to decide the appeal on merit based on the documents available before him i.e. grounds of appeal, statement of facts and the assessment order. From the above narration, it is observed that the assessee could neither submit the written submission/ arguments concerning the case before the ld. CIT(A) nor made efforts to controvert the findings of the AO and it is also noted that it has escaped from the attention of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, to mention in the notice of hearing that it is the last opportunity for the assessee to contest the case. We feel in the interest of equity and justice that one more chance may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A) by submitting necessary evidence/ written submission etc. but the assessee will cooperate in the appellate proceedings and also will not demand further adjournment on frivolous 4 ITA NO. 367/JP/2022 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR grounds. In this situation, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh hearing but by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as per the directions mentioned hereinabove. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /12/2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/12/2022 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal,,Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 367/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar