HARINARAYAN YADAV, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 831/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 83123114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R A KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 831/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PAN NO. AAUPY2409B HARINARAYAN YADAV, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1822, SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD WARD 2(4), JAIPUR JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 832/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN NO. AAUPY2409B HARINARAYAN YADAV, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1822, SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD WARD 2(4), JAIPUR JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A. KHANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.L. CHANDEL. DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2013 ORAL ORDER PER B.R. JAIN, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE O RDERS DATED 05/08/2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUND S:- 2 GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 831/JP/2013 IS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS MADE A ADDITION OF RS. 73500.00 TOWARDS CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK AND RAISED DEMAND OF R S. 44450/- WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AND NOT AS PER THE LAW AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENT BU T THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED AND MADE ADDITION WHI CH IS IMPROPER IN LAW. 3. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD MENTIONED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN LAW BUT A SSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE PAPERS BOTH WITH ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CORRESPONDING ADDRESS AT 1822, SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR, BUT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES D ID NOT SEND ANY LETTER AT THIS ADDRESS. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER RULE 46-A IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 832/JP/2013 IS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS MADE A ADDITION OF RS. 73500.00 TOWARDS CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK AND RAISED DEMAND OF R S. 29748.00 WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AND NOT AS PER THE LAW AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 73500.00 IN BANK ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 O UT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS AND RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENT BU T THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED AND MADE ADDITION WHI CH IS IMPROPER IN LAW. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE AND ALSO D OING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES SINCE A LONG TIME. SO HE HAS DEPOSITED R S. 73500.00 IN BANK FROM PERSONAL SAVINGS AND RECEIPTS FROM AGRICU LTURAL ACTIVITIES. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 73500.00 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CORRESPONDING ADDRESS AT 1822, SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR, BUT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES D ID NOT SEND ANY LETTER AT THIS ADDRESS. 6. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD MENTIONED FO R ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN LAW BUT A SSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE PAPERS BOTH WITH ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 7. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER RULE 46-A IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 3 8. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE GROSS T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 143793.00 FOR ADDITION OF INCOME WHILE THEY HAVE NO T CONSIDERED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF RS. 46534.00 THUS TH E TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN WAS RS. 97266.00. 2. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE LD. D.R. HAS PRODUCED ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS BY GIVING HIS ADDRESS AS 1822, SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IS FO UND TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(2) OF THE ACT ON 09/6/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ALSO OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 GIVING THE ADDRESS AS A-100 , SANJAY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE AT PROPER ADDRESS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON ON S UCH GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM. IT, THEREFORE, HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE GROUND O F SERVICE OF NOTICE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS BEEN ANSWERED AGAINST HIM BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSEE, ISSUED NOTICE AT AN ADDRESS WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THIS NOTICE IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT, THEREF ORE, DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FOR EXPLAINING HIS CASE, WHICH LED TO THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT AND SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN BOTH THE YEARS IN APPEA L AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EFF ECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ISSUES ARE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF PARTIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 21/11/2013. SD/- (B.R. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 21/11/2013 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI HARINARAYAN YADAV, JAIPUR. 2. THE ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 831 & 832/JP/2013) BY ORD ER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.