SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

ITA 463/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4826 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA ACIT DHK
• Keywords: Competent authority; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 463/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA E-58, GROUND FLOOR, HANUMAN PATH, SHYAM NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACVPT3983 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/10/2020 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 07.01.2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE HEARI NG OF THE APPEALS ARE CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT EVEN ITA NO. 463/JP/19 SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA VS. ITO 2 CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF OF THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF LD. AO IN TREATING ENTIRE RS. 266100.00 AS INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SAME THE LD. AO ALSO ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING CORRESPONDING CREDIT OF RS. 27229.00 FOR TAX DEDUCT ED AT SOURCE ON SUCH INCOME THIS IS MOST ARBITRARY, UNJUST, UNTENAB LE, BAD IN FACT AND IN LAW AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE EXCESSIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 UPON AFORESAID ADDITION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONCLUDING ASSE SSING EXPARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT EVEN REJECTING ADJOURNING APPL ICATION OF ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147/14 8 DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS: A. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMEN T WERE UNDATED MEANING THEREBY THAT THEY WERE NOT RECORDED BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR REOPENING. ITA NO. 463/JP/19 SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA VS. ITO 3 B. PROPER SANCTION WAS NOT ACCORDED AS PER SECTION 151 BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE SANCTION WAS UNDATED, NOT BY AUTHORITY REQUIRED TO GRANT SANCTION AND IN ADDITION TO SAME, THE SANCTION WAS GRANTED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF INDEPENDENT MIND AND IN A MECHANIZED MANNER BY WRITING ONLY YES. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF AB OVE ARE PRAYED TO BE QUASHED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON ASSESSEE WAS VOID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS TH E AUTHORITY PASSING THE ORDER WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE AUTHORITY WHO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SAME IS A SERIOUS JURISDICTIONAR Y DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURABLE. 6. THE APPELLANT HEREBY CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 4. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE SEVERAL OP PORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR FILED ANY SUBMISSION, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO OP TION BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 5. IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTION AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ALTERNATIV E PLEA THAT A CREDIT OF RS. 27,229/- FOR TDS WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE AO AS WEL L AS BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE LD. ITA NO. 463/JP/19 SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA VS. ITO 4 CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WIT HOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE RECORD OF T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2020. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL; @ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12/10/2020 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI HIMANSHU TANEJA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKH @ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR. 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. 463/JP/19) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR