Shri Surendra Singh, Bundi V. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

ITA 859/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6491 (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: 54F

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. 859/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SURENDRA SINGH, WARD NO. 10, MAIN MARKET, KESHORAI PATAN, BUNDI. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AZAPS 0338 Q 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. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING THE APPEAL ORDER EX PARTE. THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE IN PAS T- BUT NOT ON OR BEFORE DATE OF ORDER THERE WAS NO NOTICE OF HEARING WHICH IS COMING UP FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF APPEAL ORDER ITSELF. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F ON INVESTMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR PURCHAS E OF HOUSE. THAT THE LD. A.O. STATED THAT THERE CAN BE NO PURCHASE O N IKRARNAMA, WHICH IS ILL CONFINED AND WHEN THE POSSESSION HAS B EEN GIVEN THEN THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN ALL RESPECT AND HENCE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT, 196 1. ITA 859/JP/2018_ SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO 2 FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 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 ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF HATWARI AND AGRICULTURE ON RENT BASI S. 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-AP PEARANCE 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 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DESPITE FOUR NOTICES, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE NOR INFORMED BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE C.A. SHRI S.P. GUPTA WHO WAS REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND TOOK ADJOURNMENTS , HOWEVER, ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING DATED 09/11/2017, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ITA 859/JP/2018_ SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO 3 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER FIVE MONTHS WITHOUT GIVING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WELL VERSED WITH THE P ROCEDURE BEING A RURAL BACKGROUND PERSON, THEREFORE, HE WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING GOOD PRIMA FACIE CASE ON MERITS AS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THROUGH WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN THE NEW ASSET FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE SALE AGREEMENT THROUGH WHICH THIS PR OPERTY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD. THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 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. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL A S RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENT IONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DESPITE FOUR NOTICES AND TWO ADJ OURNMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FINALLY TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. ITA 859/JP/2018_ SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO 4 CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC DATES ON WHICH THE APPE AL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY OF EFFECTIVE HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDIN GLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC DATES OF HEARING ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADJOURNMENTS A ND SUBSEQUENTLY THE DATE OF HEARING ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS 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- SHRI SURENDRA SINGH, BUNDI. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, BUNDI. ITA 859/JP/2018_ SURENDRA SINGH VS ITO 5 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. 859/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR