SANJAY ARORA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 731/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2167 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH CHAND KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

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 HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 731/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SANJAY ARORA, 1/553, KALA KUAN HOUSING BOARD, ALWAR, (RAJ)- 301001 CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAYPA 5695 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : MS. SHIVANGI SAMDHANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGDISH CHAND KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/05/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE A .Y. 2011-12. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ARE AS UNDE R:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATIO N OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DE CIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND IN CONSIDERING THE VALUE ADOPTE D FOR STAMPS DUTY PURPOSE OF CALCULATING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF TWO PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND UPHOLDING CONSEQUENT ITA 731/JP/2016_ SANJAY ARORA VS ITO 2 ADDITION OF INR 3,13,776/- EVEN WHEN THE DIFFERENCE IN STAMP DUTY VALUATION VIS-A-VIS STATED SALE CONSIDERATION DOES NOT EXCEEDS THE TOLERABLE BAND OF 15% VARIATION AS DECI DED IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TIME TO TIME. 3. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KAT IJI & ORS. (1987) 167 ITR 471. SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR I TA NO. 826/JP/20-13. (II) M/S JOHN FOWLER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS DCIT ITA NO. 7545/MUM/2014 (III) JAYVANTSINGH N NAGHELA VS ITO (2013) 40 TAXMA NN.COM 491 (GUJ). 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI [1987] 167 ITR 471 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDON E DELAY BY ENACTING S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE TH E COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL ITA 731/JP/2016_ SANJAY ARORA VS ITO 3 JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERI TS. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS A DEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE END OF JUSTICETHAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXIST ENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. . 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDER ATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES T O BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJ USTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. . 6. IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECA USE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO... UNDER THE PRESENT FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING APPEAL LAT E. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BACK WIT H DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND EFF ECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/01/2018. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN DQY HKKJR (BHAGCHAND) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH JANUARY, 2018 ITA 731/JP/2016_ SANJAY ARORA VS ITO 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(1), ALWAR. 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. 731/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR