SMT. POONAM PANDEY, JHUNJHUNU V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 45/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9750 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: R S POONIA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 45/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. POONAM PANDEY, L/H OF LATE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY, B-BLOCK, B 79, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. J.C.I.T., JHUNJHUNU RANGE, JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: CCYPP 8524 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. POONIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/09/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2016 OF LD. CIT(A)-35, NEW DELHI/CAMP OFFICE A T JAIPUR ARISING FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271E OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING A PENALTY OF RS. 9,00,000/- U/S 271E OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT OF THE CASE AS AL LEGED IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND ALSO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN ITS RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. ITA 45/JP/2018_ POONAM PANDEY VS JCIT 2 2. THE APPELLATE CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND AND ALTER THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE EX PARTE AS NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED IN THE O RDER REGARDING TWO NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 4.2 AS UNDER : 4.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NO N-COMPLIANCE BY THE APPELLANT/AR. THE DETAILS OF NON-COMPLIANCE IS AS F OLLOWS: ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 250(1) HEARING OF FIXED FOR RESPONSE OF THE APPELLANT. 25/05/2015 12/06/2015 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT 10 /10/2016 20/10/2016 NONE APPEARED HENCE, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS OR FACT S BROUGHT UP BY THE APPELLANT TO DEFEND ITS APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS THERE FORE, BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND RECORD AVAILABLE IN FILE. 3. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT AF TER FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 09/09/2012. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESS EE AND SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, NOBODY HAD APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271D OF THE ACT IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE LD AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS MAY BE ITA 45/JP/2018_ POONAM PANDEY VS JCIT 3 GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE TO PRESENT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS THOUGH OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN APPROPRIATE STEPS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL A S CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT AFTER FILING THE APPEAL O N 24/8/2012, THE ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 09/09/2012 AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. TH OUGH, THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE APPROPRIATE ST EPS FOR PURSUING THE APPEAL AND SUBSTITUTING THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, HOWEV ER, SINCE IT IS A CASE OF DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL AND RATHER JUST AFTER FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE LEGAL HEIRSS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH LEGA L HEIRS AND THEN DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. ITA 45/JP/2018_ POONAM PANDEY VS JCIT 4 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/09/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. POONAM PANDEY, L/H OF LATE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE J.C.I.T., JHUNJHUNU RANGE, JHUNJHUNU. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 45/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR