Smt. Uma Usha Chandel, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer- 2(4), Kanpur

ITA 395/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4625 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.395/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), KANPUR. VS SMT. UMA USHA CHANDEL, 63/1, VIJAY NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AFEPC1844B (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 15/03/2016 DATE OF HEARING 18/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 18/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE LEAR NED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AGRA DUE T O HER CRITICAL ILLNESS AS PER THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE APPELLANT WAS THAT SERIOUSLY ILL THAT SHE EVEN COULD NOT INFORM ANYONE IN THE FAMILY ABOUT TH IS CASE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AGRA IS AGAINST LAW A FACTS AND T REATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS BASELESS AND AGAINST FACTS AND THE APPELLANT HERSELF IS RECORDED FARMER IN THE RECORDS OF GOVERNMENT. 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.250000.00 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AGRA HAS TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 21689.00 ONLY, WITHOUT ANY FACTS AND EVIDENCES AND BALANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS. 228311.00 HAS BE EN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 4. THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AGRA WAS NEITHER CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT NOR EVEN THE OR DER SPEAKS ABOUT IT. THEREFORE THE BASIS ADOPTED FOR TR EATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS AGAINST LAW, JUSTICE AND WITHOUT ANY BASE. 5. IN THIS WAY THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 250000.00 IS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURCES ONLY HENCE SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ALSO EX-PARTE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THESE AUTHORITIES SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SICK DURING THIS PERIOD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENT IRE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HEN THE ASSESSEE WILL MAKE PROPER COMPLIANCE. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT MAKE PROPER COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE A.O. AND CIT(A), WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE E NTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF 3 BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION, WE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:18/03/2016 *SINGH 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