KAMLESH MERUBHAI CHAUHAN, JUNAGADH V. I.T.O NEAC DELHI, DELHI

ITA 441/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0918 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJU MANEK
• Keywords: Gift; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 441/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Merubhai Chauhan, Opp. Rokadiya Hanuman Tample Station Plot, Near Railway Station Chowk Junagadh, Junagadh-362001, Gujarat Vs. The ITO(NFAC), Delhi èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABTPC4166F (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Raju Manek, AR राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi), which in turn arises, out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26-03-2021. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) as I.T.A No. 441/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Kamlesh Merubhai Chauhan vs. ITO 2 the notices of hearing were not served upon him, therefore, ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted before us the paper book containing page 40 wherein the ld. Counsel explained the genuineness of the gift given by the father to the assessee-son under consideration. The ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to file the relevant documents and details before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, ld. D.R. for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of CIT(A). 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not file the relevant documents and details, as these were not available with the assessee when the proceedings were going on before ld. CIT(A). I also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass order as per mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act i.e. did not adjudicate the issue as per materials available on record. Therefore, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. I also direct the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings, and file the required details and documents before the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A No. 441/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Kamlesh Merubhai Chauhan vs. ITO 3 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16-07-2024 Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 16/07/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot