Smt. Narendra Kaur, Kota V. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bundi

ITA 858/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6490 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: B V MAHESHWARI
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 147

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S 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 VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 858/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. NARENDRA KAUR, B-74, RIDHI SIDHI NAGAR, BEHIND PETROL PUMP, KUNHARI, KOTA. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), BUNDI. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACWPK 9633 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 857/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. NARENDRA KAUR, B-74, RIDHI SIDHI NAGAR, KOTA. CUKE VS. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE- SAWAI MADHOPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACWPK 9633 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V. MAHESHWARI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/01/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 16/03/2018 AND 19/03/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ NARENDRA KAUR VS ITO 2 ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WI TH SECTION 147 AND PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS: GROUNDS OF ITA 858/JP/2018 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING TH E SAID APPEAL ORDER EX PARTE. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN TAKING ACTION U/S 147/148 OF IT ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE LD. A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON RS. 1,33,262/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCT ION U/S 54F AND INVESTED THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION IN CONSTR UCTION OF HOUSE THEN THERE IS NOTHING TO DENY TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/ S 541F. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY A.O. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DUE TO NON-APP EARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE AP PEAL EX PARTE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF T HE ACT. ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ NARENDRA KAUR VS ITO 3 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HA S MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE DISPUTE IN THIS C ASE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND NAMELY SHRI SURENDRA SINGH IN ITA NO. 859/JP/2018. SINCE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS FAIRLY AGREED TO THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR FOR REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE REC ORD OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX PARTE WHEN NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DESPITE FOUR NOTICES AND TWO ADJOURNMENTS, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO I N ITA NO. 859/JP/2018. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN THE C ASE OF SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO (SUPRA) VIDE EVEN DATED ORDER AS UNDER : ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ NARENDRA KAUR VS ITO 4 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ME NTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DESPITE FOUR NOTICES AND TWO AD JOURNMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FINALLY TAKEN UP FOR H EARING. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SPEC IFIC DATES ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF EFFECTIVE HEARING BEFO RE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFI C DATES OF HEARING ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADJOURNMENTS AND SUBSEQU ENTLY THE DATE OF HEARING ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APP EAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN ITA NO. 857/JP/2018, THOUGH, THE LD. CIT(A) P ASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MERITS, HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO PASSED EX PARTE AS NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINC E ALL THESE MATTERS ARISING FROM IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE RE CORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRATING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSE SSEE. ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ NARENDRA KAUR VS ITO 5 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 16 TH JANUARY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. NARENDRA KAUR, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- (I)THE ITO (TDS), BUNDI & (II) THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-SAWAI MADHOPUR. 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. 858 AND 857/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR