SMT. KAMLI DEVI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 637/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74798 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI H.M. MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 637/JP/2013 ASSTT. YEAR- 2008-09 SMT. KAMLI DEVI THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, W/O- SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD BUNKAR VRS. WARD- 7(3), J AIPUR. V&P TATIYAWAS, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. PAN NO. BXVPK3554J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S.L. PODDAR DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI D.C. SHARMA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/01/2014 O R D E R PER: N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR. FOLLOWING GROUN DS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB I NITIO. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER FOR PASSING ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA 637/JP/2013 2 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,41,30 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES YOUR INDULGENCE TO ADD, AMEN D OR ALTER ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 WERE NOT PRESSED WHILE GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, SO THESE GROUNDS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION ON OUR PART. 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 3, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,41,300/-. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMAT ION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF DIT (CIB), JAIPUR, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17/12/20 09 AND DUE TO ITS NON- COMPLIANCE, COMPLETED BEST JUDGMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 5,51,300/-, CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE TATIYAWAS, TEHSIL, AMBER, JAIPUR. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 12/11/2012 STATING THE REIN THAT SHE AND HER HUSBAND ARE ILLITERATE AND LABOURERS. THEY HAD EARNED ABOUT RS.1.50 LACS PER ANNUM OUT OF WHICH RS. 40,000-RS. 50,000/- WERE SAVED EVERY YEAR AND THOSE SAVINGS KEPT IN CASH OVER THE YEARS, WERE INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE LD. ITA 637/JP/2013 3 CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT CONSIDERING THE SAME AS SELF SERVING STATEMENT WITHOUT ANY CORROBOR ATE EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A DU E AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 4 OF THE ACT OR THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SIMPLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE A FFIDAVIT AND IGNORED THIS VITAL FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND TO BE LABOURERS, SAVED THE MONEY IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HE ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. D.R. ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT CONTRO VERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A PROPER AND REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO EXPLAIN HER CASE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE A SSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO BODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXI M OF AUDI ALTERM PARTEM. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAN D THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 637/JP/2013 4 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/01/2014) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 30/01/2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. APPELLANT SMT. KAMLI DEVI , JAIPUR 2. RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 7(3), JAIPUR, 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 637/JP/2013) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.