CHIRANJI LAL BAIRWA, Jaipur V. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 404/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Chiranji Lal Bairwa, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 2010-11. The ITO had treated the sale of a property as a capital asset, leading to an addition of Rs. 8,31,375 to the assessee's income. The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-compliance with notices and lack of substantive arguments or evidence during the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132323 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 50C; 142(1)

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.404/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2010-11 Chiranji Lal Bairwa Plot No. 44 Triveni Nagar, Opp Railway Station, Rampura Road Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALSPB 8259 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by:Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/09/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04 /10/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 09.03.2023 [here in after ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2010-11 which in turn arise from the order dated 21.12.2017passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by TRO-3, Jaipur . 2 ITA No. 404/JP/2023 Chiranji Lal Bairwa vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding validity of assessment order passed by the ld. AO. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,31,375/- by treating the sale of property as capital asset which is contrary to material facts. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in making allegations against the assessee which are not only contrary but also against the principle of natural justice. 7. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 8. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. A propose to the hearing, the bench noted that there is delay in filing appeal by 56 days notices of defect send to the assessee by e-mail but has not yet responded and hearing. This case was fixed for hearing on 29.03.2023 on the date of hearing, the assessee has filed an adjournment application and the same was dismissed as the reasons advanced in the adjournment application is not sufficient, the content of the adjournment application is as under:- “The above-referred appeals are posted for hearing before the Hon’ble Bench on 20/09/2023. 3 ITA No. 404/JP/2023 Chiranji Lal Bairwa vs. ITO I shall be grateful if your honour’s make it convenient to adjourn the hearing any other suitable date as the I have received the instruction from the local council for arguing the appeal today but not received the Vakalatnama and appeal record as the local council is busy in audit work and filing of return.” 4. Since we have not entertained the adjournment application, the appeal of the assessee is decided based on the facts available on record. 5. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2017 after obtaining prior approval of Pr.CIT-3, Jaipur since there was an information with the Department that assessee had sold land vide Khasra No. 1091/954 during FY 2009-10 for Rs.5,00,000/- within the municipal limits of Jaipur city. The value of this land under section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 is Rs.8,36,375/-. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11.08.2017 and served for compliance on 24.08.2017. There was no compliance by assessee to this notice u/s 142(1) and subsequent notices u/s 142(1) and final opportunity/show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.09.2017 for compliance on 25.09.2017. Assessment u/s 147/144 was completed ex-parte on 21.12.2017 at total income of Rs.8,31,375/-. Against this order, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Jaipur on 27.01.2018 who decided the appeal ex-parte on 19.12.2018 due to total non-compliance by assessee. Against this order assessee moved ITAT, Jaipur Bench, wherein the bench vide order in ITA No.206/JP/2019 dated 4 ITA No. 404/JP/2023 Chiranji Lal Bairwa vs. ITO 06.03.2020 set aside the issue to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 6. Thus, the bench noted that the assessee was given the chance to represent the case before ld. CIT(A) and even though there were three notices given after set aside of the proceedings by the Bench to the assessee. Three instances of the notices are given in span of 10 months and the assessee did file any submission in support of the grounds raised in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed order, mentioning the details of 3 notices issued to the assessee as reproduced here in below : Notice issued Date of issue of notice Date of compliance Remarks 250 04.04.2022 11.04.2022 No reply 250 21.12.2022 26.12.2022 Adjournment petition filed on 17.01.2023 250 09.02.2023 14.02.2023 No reply 7. Therefore, in support of the fact that the assessee remained non- compliant in the earlier round of litigation.One more chance was given by the Bench vide order dated 06.03.2020 on which the assessee in support of given three occasions did not appear and file the requisite submission before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case on merits. Before us also while filing the appeal, the 5 ITA No. 404/JP/2023 Chiranji Lal Bairwa vs. ITO assessee did not file any document in support of the claim that why the addition of Rs. 8,31,375/- is not sustainable and it is sale of property and is capital assets and receipt thereof is not chargeable to tax in full. Based on these observations, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. In the result, the appealof the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/10/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼ jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/10/2023 *Ganesh Kumar, PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Chiranji Lal Bairwa, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 7(2), 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. 404/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar