SHRI MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

ITA 849/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9378 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP SHIVPURI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Invalid notice; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Tangible material; Assessment record; Condonation of delay; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 201; 143(2); 139(1); 48; 13; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 698, VIDHHUT NAGAR-A, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGWPS8927L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. DILIP SHIVPURI (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/08/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 3, JAIPUR DATED 28.02.2019 FOR A.Y 2013-14. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY 42 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL FOR TWO YEARS I.E, A.Y 2012-13 AND 201 3-14 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ON ENQUIRY OF THE STA TUS OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER ON 28.02.2019 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE APPEAL FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., A.Y 2012-13 IS STILL PENDING. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE SAID ORD ER, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME WHI CH WAS RECEIVED ON 03.06.2019 AND THEREAFTER, THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS F ILED ON 10.06.2019. IN ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 SUPPORT, AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL S HOULD THEREFORE START FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS COMMUNICATED OR RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CAUSE DELAY NOR DID HE HAS ANY VESTED I NTEREST IN THE DELAY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A CATENA OF JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS M. KATIJI & OTHERS HAS HELD THAT DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR THE DELAY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT A LIBERAL VIEW MAY BE TAKEN ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE COURTS IS TO DI SPENSE JUSTICE AND NOT TO DISMISS APPEALS ON MERE TECHNICALITIES. IT WAS ACCO RDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY MAY BE ACCEPTED AND APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN DULY DISPATCHED AT THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 36 BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THUS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WA S ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW ANY REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND HAS THUS OPP OSED THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLY EX PLAINED THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AS SUBMITTED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HENCE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE P RESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATIO N. 5. NOW, COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.01.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,63,000/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED AFTER DULY RECORDING OF REASONS AND OBTAINING APPROVAL AND NOT ICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 ON 16.09.2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED AD. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS HOWEVER FILED WITHIN TIME PERIOD. THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE U/ S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 19.07.2017 AND THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 24.11.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 1 47 READ WITH SECTION 144 DATED 26.12.2017. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD LENT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 27,08,900/- AS U NSECURED LOAN TO RAM AND AMIT GUPTA MEMORIAL TRUST AND GIVEN THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF SUCH AMOUNT WITH SUPPORT ING DOCUMENTS, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY AND BROUGHT T O TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE AC CORDINGLY COMPLETED AT RS. 36,72,500/-VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2017. BEING A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DUE TO NON- PROSECUTION ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2019. AGAINST THE S AID ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. FIRSTLY, WE LOOK AT THE ASSESSEES PRAYER FOR AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. IN ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSES SEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION FOR ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: THAT THE NOTICE U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 ISSU ED IS INVALID AND ILLEGAL SINCE THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME HAS ESCAPED ESCAPEMENT. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF INVALID NOTICE AROSE AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE REA SONS RECORDED BY THE AO BECAME KNOWN ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER WAS ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 RECEIVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAIS ED AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT HE DID NOT CO NSIDER THE SAME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE GOES TO THE R OOT OF THE MATTER, AND DOES NOT NEED FURTHER VERIFICATION, OR FILING OF AD DITIONAL DOCUMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJ UDICATION. 8. ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, T HE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CLASSIC CASE OF BORROWED SATISFACTION WHERE THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE REPORT RECEIVED BY HIM FROM ITO (I&CI) WAS CORRECT OR NOT, AND TO VERIFY HOW HE HAD COME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT A CASE CANNOT BE REOPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF THE FAC TS AS STATED IN THE REPLY WHICH THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS CA HAD GIVEN A PARTI CULAR SOURCE. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE ITO (I&CI) AND/OR THE AO WOULD HAVE A DOUBT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BUT AN ASSE SSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF A DOUBT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW WHY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. NO FURTHER VERIFICATION WAS DONE BY THE AO AS TO WHY THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED WAS WITH REGARD TO DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,55,816/- IN CAS H, BUT ACTUALLY IT WAS FOUND THAT ONLY RS. 90,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THEREFOR E, IF THE AO HAD TRIED TO VERIFY THE FACTS, HE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE INFORMATI ON TO BE INCORRECT. SINCE THE INFORMATION ITSELF WAS INCORRECT, THE VERY BASI S FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BECOMES VOID AB INITIO AS HELD BY VARIOUS COURT S. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RELYING TOTA LLY ON THE REPORT OF THE IGP, ACB, RAJASTHAN POLICE, JAIPUR WITHOUT INDEPEND ENT VERIFICATION OF FACTS, AND WITHOUT THERE BEING MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW, THAT EVEN A PRIMA FACIE REASON CAN BE FORMED ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFOR MATION, VITIATES THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY THEREFORE BE ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T ONCE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT DOES NOT SURVIVE, ADDIT IONS CANNOT BE MADE ON OTHER ISSUES. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CI T VS. JET AIRWAYS(L) LTD [2010] 331 ITR 236 (BOM.) & RANBAXY LABORATORIES LT D. VS. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (DEL.) 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTL Y ARGUED THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BEFO RE THE AO AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, HE CA NNOT RAISED THIS GROUND AT THIS STAGE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE THIS GROUND EVEN BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) AND EVEN NO CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO RAISE THIS GROUND BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. ON MERITS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 6,55,816/- IN HIS SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, AJMER RO AD, JAIPUR. THEREFORE, BASIS THE SAID INFORMATION, THE AO HAD FORMED A PRI MA FACIE VIEW THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T IT IS SETTLED JUDICIAL PROPOSITION THAT SUFFICIENCY AND ADEQUACY OF MATERI AL MAY NOT BE SEEN AT THE TIME OF EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION AO U/S 148 SO LONG AS THE MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NECESSARY NEXUS WITH THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DE CISION IN CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE N OTICE U/S 148 DATED 16.09.2016 WAS DULY ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS CHALLENGING T HE VERY JURISDICTION OF THE ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THERE WAS NO REASON ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ESCAPEME NT AND THE SAME BEING A LEGAL GROUND CAN BE TAKEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO ASSESSEES APPEAL B EFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUND OF APPEAL (GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3) IN HIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VOID AB INITIO AS RE ASONS RECORDED FOR THE REOPEN OF THE CASE U/S 148 IS FOUND INCORRE CT. ASSESSMENT WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 147 ON THE ROVING AND FISHING ENQUI RY. 13. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS THEREFORE NOT A FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH IS TAKEN FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. GIVEN THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME IS HEREBY ADMITTED. 14. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE AND APPRECIATE THE CONTE NTIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE HOWEVER, FIND THAT REASONS SO RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, AROUN D WHICH THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED, IS NOT DISCERNABLE EITHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES AND IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE ARE UNABLE T O TAKE A VIEW IN THE MATTER. HAVING SAID THAT, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ALREADY TAKEN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THERE IS NO FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) DISPOSING OFF SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR THAT THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD DISPOSE OFF THE S AID GROUND OF APPEAL FIRST AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE STILL HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE, HE CAN APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL AND WE WILL THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO C ONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL. TO OUR MIND, THE SAME IS ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDICIAL ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 DISCIPLINE WHERE THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THEN, BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE ACCORDINGL Y SET ASIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE S AME BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE THE CONTENTIONS SO ADV ANCED BEFORE US AND THE SAME ARE THUS LEFT OPEN AND THE LD CIT(A) SHALL DEC IDE THE SAME AS PER LAW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 15. NOW COMING TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THUS THE CONSEQUENT REASSESSME NT COMPLETED IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE, WHICH I S AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS THUS PRAYED THA T ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN DECIDING TH E APPEAL EX PARTE AS THE REASONS DUE TO WHICH CASE COULD NOT BE ATTEN DED TO BY COUNSEL WERE ABSOLUTELY GENUINE, WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED WITHIN A SPAN OF 86 DAYS FROM THE FIRST HEARING FIXED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO , ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 27,08,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN AND ADVANCES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY LD. AO WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND ALSO WITHOUT MA KING PROPER ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION TO THE OVERWHELMING EVI DENCES/MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. AO, TH US THE ADDITION MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D. 16. IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE A SSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT PROVIDING HIM COPY OF R EASONS SO RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE CONSEQUENT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CONTENDED TO BE BAD IN LAW WHICH DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 17. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO SUPPLY COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 VIDE LETTER DATED 05.07.2017. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T SUPPLY THE REASONS SO RECORDED AND PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26.12.2017. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT NON-SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 VITIATES THE SAID NOTICE FATALLY AND RENDERS THE CO NSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS NULL AND VOID. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT V. V. R AMAIAH [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM 201 (KAR). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT AS REPORTED IN 262 TAXMAN 16 (SC). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THAT D UE TO NON-SUPPLY OF THE REASONS SO REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHTFUL RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE REOPENING OF THE PR OCEEDINGS AND THUS, THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE GOT VITIATED AND THE SA ME SHOULD BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 18. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REAS ONS SO RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WERE DULY PROVIDED TO TH E ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AR O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS AR THEREAFTER DULY PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONTENTIONS SO ADVAN CED BY THE LD AR DOESNT HAVE ANY MERITS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DISM ISSED. IN SUPPORT, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE REPORT OF THE ITO WARD 7 (1), JAIPUR DATED 30.06.2020 AND COPIES OF THE COMMUNICATION EXCHANGE D BETWEEN THE AO AND THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTICES ISSUED B Y THE AO. REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AR OF THE A SSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 05.07.2017 HAD REQUESTED TO PROVIDE REASONS F OR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, ON 11.07.2017 WHILE SE EKING ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 11.07.2017, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APP EARED BEFORE THE AO AND THE REASONS SO RECORDED WERE HANDED OVER BY AO TO H IM. AGAIN, WHILE SERVING NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 19.07.2017, COPY OF THE REASONS WERE AGAIN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AR ON 20.07.2017 WHICH WERE D ULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD THEREAFTER ATTENDED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDIN GS BEFORE THE AO FROM TIME TO TIME. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NEV ER CHALLENGED OR OBJECTED TO AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HAD HE DONE SO, THE OBJECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THIS STAGE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE SAME. IT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTIVES OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFT REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19 ARE QUITE CLEAR AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY FOLLOWED BY THE AO AND GIVEN THAT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN DULY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LATTER HAVING NOT OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO PREJUDICE WHICH IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DENYING HIS RIGHTFUL RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE REOPENI NG OF THE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 10 19. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR ALONG WITH HIS REPORT IS FABRICATED EVIDENCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT A REQUEST MADE IN WR ITING FOR A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS REP LIED TO BY A COVERING LETTER AND A COPY OF THE REASONS ARE ATTACHED THERETO. NO SUCH THING HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, AS NO COVERING LETTER, DULY DISP ATCHED, HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ITO; B) A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD SHOW THA T THERE IS NOT A WHISPER OR MENTION OF THE REASONS BEING SUPPLIED TO THE ASS ESSEE OR HIS AR; C) THE EVIDENCE PLACED IN THE FORM OF LETTER DATED 11.07.2017 DOES NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURES OF THE RECIPIENT AS PROOF OF HAVING RECEIVED THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WORD 'NOTED' IS FOR THE DATE GIVEN BY THE ITO FOR THE NEXT HEARING. A C OPY OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER OF THE AR DATED 11.07.2017 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH TO SHOW THAT NO SUCH REMARKS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ORIGINAL LETTER; D) AS FAR AS THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS CONCERNED, NO TAX AUTHORITY TAKES THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPLYING REASONS ON THE NOTICE I TSELF. THE ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 143(2) RECEIVED BY THE CLERK SHRI DEEPAK, OF TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS ENCLOSED. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH NOTING, AS M ENTIONED BY THE ITO IN HIS REPORT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SIGNATURES OF SH RI DEEPAK IS IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) AND NOT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. SHRI DEEPAK IS ONLY A CLERK WITH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD ONLY RECEIVED THE NO TICE U/S 143(2) FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE AR. HE WAS NEITHER AUTHORISED TO R ECEIVE ANY OTHER DOCUMENT NOR DID HE RECEIVE A COPY OF THE REASONS R ECORDED U/S 148 EVER. A COPY OF HIS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION IS ENCLOSED; ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 11 E) AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AVINASH KHANDELWAL, CA AND AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATING THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS CLERK HAD EVER RECE IVED A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, EITHER ON 11. 07.2017 OR ON 20.07.2017. 20. IN HER REJOINDER TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD AR ALLEGING FRABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AS SUBMITTED BY THE ITO, THE LD DR VEHEMEN TLY OPPOSED THE SAID CONTENTIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SERIOUS ALLE GATION RAISED BY THE LD AR WHICH HOWEVER HAS NOT LEGS TO STAND. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ITO IS AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WHO HOLDS A RESP ONSIBLE POSITION TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES BESTOWED ON HIM BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND HE HAS MERELY SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AS PAR T OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND HE HAS NO PERSONAL INTEREST WHEREBY HE INTENDS TO FABRICATE WITH THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE BENCH SO DESIRES, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS CAN BE CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED D IRECTLY BY THE BENCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO STANDING PRO TOCOL THAT THE REASONS HAVE TO BE SUPPLIED WITH ALONG WITH A COVERING LETT ER BY THE ITO. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE AR DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE A SSESSEE HAS ATTENDED TO THE PROCEEDINGS, APPEARED BEFORE THE ITO AND WHERE DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS, COPY OF THE REASONS SO RECORDED HAVE B EEN HANDED OVER TO HIM AND WHERE HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME, THE SAME IS IN DULY COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HAVING RECEIV ED THE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITO ON THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07. 2017 AND THEREAFTER, ON THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) DATED 19.07.2017 BOTH OF WHICH FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND IT IS NEVER A CASE THAT THE ITO WILL ACKNOWLEDGE OF HAVING GIVEN A COPY OF THE REASONS O N THE ASSESSEES COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 11.07.2017. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT SHRI DEEPAK, THE CLERK OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ITO ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 12 HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE COPY OF THE REASONS WHERE HE HAS ACCEPTED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND HAS ALSO ATTENDE D AND SORT ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE A PERSON /FIRM IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID PERSON/FIRM IN TURN AUTHORIZE AN EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, IT IS NEITHER PRACTI CAL NOR EXPECTED FROM THE ITO TO CHECK AND VERIFY EVERY TIME WHERE HE IS AUTH ORIZED TO RECEIVE A PARTICULAR COMMUNICATION OR NOT. IT WAS ACCORDINGL Y SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR AND THE SAM E SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 1 48 WAS ISSUED ON 16.09.2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE FIRST COMMUNICATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IS A LETTER DATED 5.07.2017 WRITTEN BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE SAID LETTER DATED 5.07.2017, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY ON 28.01.2015 DECLARING GROSS TOT AL INCOME OF RS 10,69,177 AND A COPY OF SAID RETURN WAS ENCLOSED. IN THE SAI D LETTER DATED 5.07.2017, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISS UED BY ITO BUT A COPY OF THE REASONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT COPY OF THE SAID REASONS MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THEREAFTER, THERE IS ANOTHER LETTER DATED 11.07.2017 WRITTEN BY THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IN TH E MATTER LISTED FOR 11.07.2017 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NE EDS SOME MORE TIME TO SUBMIT THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION. THE REAFTER, THERE IS NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 19.07.2017 ISSUED BY ITO CONSIDERI NG THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AND ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 24.11.2017. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAF TER COMPLETED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 2 6.12.2017. ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 13 22. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS REQUEST ED FOR THE COPY OF THE REASONS AND INSPITE OF THAT, THE REASONS HAVE NOT B EEN PROVIDED TO HIM. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE A/R ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE REASONS FIRSTLY ON 11.7 .2017 AND THEREAFTER, ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 19.07.2017. IN SUPPORT, COPY OF ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 11.07.2017 AND NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) DATED 19.07.2017 HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF READ AS UNDER: ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 14 23. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID TWO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ITO AS PART OF HIS REPORT DATED 30.06.2020, WE FIND THAT COPY OF THE R EASONS U/S 148 HAVE BEEN DULY PROVIDED TO THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY STATED ON ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 15 FACE OF THIS TWO DOCUMENTS AND ALSO BEING ACKNOWLED GED BY THE A/R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION THA T WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPOINTED AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPRESENTATION AN D SUBMISSIONS AND AS PART OF THE SUCH PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVES ANY NOTICE OR ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON/EMPLOYEE OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVED ANY SUCH NOTICES AND COMMUN ICATION, THE SAME WOULD BE TAKEN AS COMMUNICATION/NOTICES BEING SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS AUTHORIZED M/S A RS & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS AND EMPL OYEES TO RECEIVE NOTICES AND TO APPEAR AND MAKE REPRESENTATION/SUBMISSIONS B EFORE THE ITO. AS PART OF SUCH AUTHORIZATION, WHERE M/S ARS & COMPANY, CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANTS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI AVINASH KHANDELWAL AND ITS EMPLOYEE, SHRI DEEPAK APPEARS, RECEIVE NOTICES AND MAKE SUBMISSIONS, THE SAME WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, WHERE SHRI DEEPAK APPEARS BEFORE THE ITO AND ATTEND TO THE PRO CEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME EVEN THOUGH LIMITED TO SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER AND RECEIVING NOTICES, THE SAME WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE A UTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN TURN BY THE CA FIRM AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEDE TO THE CONTENTIO N OF THE LD AR THAT THOUGH SHRI DEEPAK IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ITO WHICH HE HAS INFACT RECEIVED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE ITO, HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD DR THAT WHERE A PERSON/FIRM IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE S AID PERSON/FIRM IN TURN AUTHORIZES AN EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, IT IS NEITHER PRACTICAL NOR EXPECTED FROM THE AO TO CHECK AND VERIFY EVERY TIME WHERE HE IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE A PARTICULAR COMM UNICATION OR NOT AND THAT TOO, AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME. FURTHER, VARIOUS O THER CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD AR REGARDING FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE ITO HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED, HOWEVER, ON REVIEW OF THE MATERIAL PLAC ED ON RECORD, WE FIND NO ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 16 MERIT IN THE SAID CONTENTIONS SO RAISED BY THE LD A R. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD DR THAT THERE IS NO STANDING I NSTRUCTIONS/PROTOCOL THAT THE REASONS HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY SUPPLIED ALONG W ITH A COVERING LETTER BY THE ITO. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE COPY OF THE REASONS SO RECORDED HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE AR AND WHERE HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME, THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE IN SPIRI T OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GKN DRIVESH AFT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ITO IS THE ISSUING AUTHORITY AND THE ASSES SEE IS THE RECIPIENT AND THEREFORE, WHERE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HAVING RECE IVED THE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITO ON THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07. 2017 AND THEREAFTER, ON THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) DATED 19.07.2017, THE SAME BEING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD CANNOT BE DOUBT ED. 24. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REASONS SO RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HAVE BEEN DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LATTER HAVING NOT OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO PREJUDICE WHICH IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DENYING HIS RIGHTF UL RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS THUS NO V IOLATION OF THE DIRECTIVES OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE O F GKN DRIVESHAFT. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CAS E OF CIT VS V. RAMAIAH (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THAT CASE, IT WAS ESTABLISHED ON FACTS THAT REASONS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE SEEN ABOVE, THE REASONS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED NOT ONCE BUT TWICE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO REMAIN SILENT AND HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE REASONS SO RECORDED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND SO TAKEN IS DISMISSED. 25. IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 2-5, THE LD AR HAS EF FECTIVELY RAISED THE PLEA THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) WIT HOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 17 AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OR DER HAS THUS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE M ATTER MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DE CIDE THE SAME AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 26. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ON AS MANY AS FOUR OCCASIONS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE AS SESSEE THROUGH ITS AR HAS EITHER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT OR HAS NOT BEEN BOTHERED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT MORE THAN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO PURPOSES WOULD BE SERVED IN PROVIDING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FUR THER, SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PURSUE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE MATTER HAS B EEN LISTED FOR HEARING ON COUPLE OF OCCASIONS BY THE LD CIT(A) AND HAS BEEN A DJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING WHEN THE MATTER WAS SCHEDULED FOR HEARING, APPARENT LY, THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS LD AR. T HEREAFTER, ON THE NEXT DAY, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE BY THE LD CIT(A) SUMMARILY WITHOUT DECIDING ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY AND ESPECIALLY WHERE THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT F ORTH HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONTENTIONS AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS A/R IS A LSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILE THE NECESSARY INFORM ATION AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, AS SO ADVISED AND EN SURE IN TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 849/JP/2019 SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 18 28. GROUND NO. 6 IS AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 23 4B/C/D AND IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND DOESNT REQUIRE ANY SEP ARATE ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED O FF IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/08/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17/08/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 849/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR