Shri Raj Kumar Kaushik C/o- Om Prakash Batheja, D-18, Anand Vihar Railway Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Alwar V. ITO Ward-2(2) Alwar, Ward-2(2) Alwar

ITA 702/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7110 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tangible material; Non passing of speaking order; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH VC A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A 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.702/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAUSHIK, 57, RATH NAGAR, BLOCK-A, VIJAY MANDIR ROAD, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. BQXPK 0507 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2020. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/08/2020. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT R S. 14,89,857/- IN A SUMMARY MANNER THROUGH A NON SPEAK ING ORDER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS : 1. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 AND THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR U/S 143(3)/147 O N THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW, VOID AB I NITIO BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE CORRECT TERRITORIAL JURIS DICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT LIES WITH ITO WARD 1(4), ALWA R AND NOT WITH ITO WARD 2(2) ALWAR. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISS UED U/S 148 AND ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3)/147 DESERVE TO BE QU ASHED. 2. THE LD. AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF SALE OF OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 15,35,000/- WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND AND PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION TH AT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD REPRESENT ESCAPE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/14 8 WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND WITHOUT FULFILLING THE RE QUIREMENTS OF LAW ARE BAD IN LAW, VOID AB INITIO AND DESERVE TO B E QUASHED. ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. PR.CIT, ALWAR ACCORDED APPROVAL U/S 151 WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IN A ROUTINE AND MECHANICAL MA NNER BY SIMPLY WRITING YES, WITHOUT FULFILLING THE MANDAT E OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL AND ALSO FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED VIDE EX PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND , THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T ATTENDED THE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT (A) IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND MAY ALSO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR ADJUD ICATION OF THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/08/2 020. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 21/08/2020. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAUSHIK, ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 2(2), ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 702/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR