SWAPNA BANSAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 750/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5441 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 27; 144

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 750 & 751/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL PROP.: NAGINA SETTING ARTS, 11/193, THAKUR COLONY, RAM NAGAR, AJMER CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AGDPB 6804 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NIKHLESH KATARIA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /02/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AJMER DATED 12- 08-2014 U/S 144 AND 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 RESPECTIVELY. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESET CASE IN NOT ALLOWING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL VS. ITO,WAR D- 1(3), AJMER . 2 FILING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. RS.1,59,920/- THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JOB RECEIPTS. 3. RS. 1,16,691/-. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF HIRE CHARGES. ITA NO. 751/JP/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESET CASE IN NOT ALLOWING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. RS.40,000/- THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(B) OF THE ACT 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 750/JP/2014, BR IEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT MAKE PROPER COMPLIANCE WHICH RESULTED INTO EX-PARTE ASSE SSMENT. AGAINST EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS LATE BY 3 MONTHS 02 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONDONATION PETITION CONTENDING THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY NE GLIGENCE OF HER ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL VS. ITO,WAR D- 1(3), AJMER . 3 COUNSEL. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONDONATION PE TITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HER EXPLAN ATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 2.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL CON TENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED IN CAUSING IMPUGNED DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY UNDER IMPRESSION THAT ALL THE STEPS NECESSA RY FOR INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING TAKEN PROPERLY BY HER COUNSE L. THE ASSESSEE IS A VERY SMALL TAX PAYER AND AFFIDAVIT WAS PLACED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE DELAY FOR LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THE CASES OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATJI & ORS.167 ITR 471 (SC), SUBHASH MALIK VS. CI T, 325 ITR 243 (ALL.) AND OTHER CASE LAWS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 2.3 THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTEND S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DILIGENT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS NON-SPECIFIC AS UNDER:- 1. THAT I AM THE REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WITH WARD 1(3), AJMER HAVING PAN ADGPB 6804 J 2. THAT THE SCRUTINY CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE I TO WARD- 1(3) ON DATED 22-12-2002. ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL VS. ITO,WAR D- 1(3), AJMER . 4 3. THAT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE APPEAL IS TO BE FI LED AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER N OR THE LD. AR SHRI ARINJAI JAIN COMMUNICATED ME REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING THE APPEAL. 2.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A LADY WAS DEPENDENT ON HER COUNSEL AND LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL. IN V IEW THEREOF, THE DELAY IN LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) IS CONDONED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PR OVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES THAT THERE WILL BE FULL COOPERATION IN ATTENDING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 2.5 THE ISSUES AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 751/JP/2014 AS TO CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 750/ JP/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE DELAY IN LATE F ILING OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDE IT AFRESH BY PROVIDING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL VS. ITO,WAR D- 1(3), AJMER . 5 BEING HEARD. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE ITA NO. 751/JP/ 2014 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE 2009-10 ALSO. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 / 02/ 2016 SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 /02/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL, AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-1 (3), AJMER 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 750/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 750/JP/2014 SMT. SWAPNA BANSAL VS. ITO,WAR D- 1(3), AJMER . 6