Ajay Kumar Jat, HANUMANGARH V. ITO, HANUMANGARH

ITA 443/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5266 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.443/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 AJAY KUMAR JAT, S/O. SHRI RAM KUMAR, SHOP NO.50, DHAN MANDI, HANUMANGARH TOWN, RAJASTHAN PAN :CRPPK7809D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), BIKANER DATED 26-08-2014 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.168/BIKANER/2012- 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR ADJOURNMENT STATING THAT HIS REPRESENTATIVE IS OUT OF STATION DUE TO SOME FAMILY AFFAIRS. AS THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LEARNED AR IS NOT SPECIFIC THE ADJOURN MENT APPLICATION STANDS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL IS HEARD. 2 ITA NO.443/JODH/2015 3. SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSM ENT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOU NT OF NON-COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARN ED CIT (A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL O F THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOWS THAT A SALE DEED HAS BEEN PRO DUCED. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DETAILS HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFO RE THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT ENTER TAIN ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. THIS BEING SO, IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLE OF NATU RAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MUST BE RESTORED TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GRANTING ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD, AND WE DO SO. 3 ITA NO.443/JODH/2015 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 10 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 11.03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 11.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 11.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT NA SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER