RAJESH TANWANIQ, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 870/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1976 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I

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. 870 & 871/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 RAJESH TANWANI, 208, RATNA SAGAR, MSB KA RASTA, JOHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABGPT 6853 R VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 25/02/2013 AND 27/02/2013 AGA INST QUANTUM ADDITION AND AGAINST PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2007- 08. THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE A S UNDER: ITA 870 & 871/JP/2013_ RAJESH TANWANI VS DCIT 2 GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 870/JP/2013 I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUS E FROM MAKING COMPLIANCE OF THE FIXATION NOTICES. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN IMPOSING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,52,093 /- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE IS RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THUS, THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED AND CONFIRMED IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 871/JP/2013 I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUS E FROM MAKING COMPLIANCE OF THE FIXATION NOTICES. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,03,459/ - BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT IN THE TRADING RESULTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THUS, THE TRADING ADDITION SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE APPELLATE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED EX PARTE BY THE LD CIT(A), A S NOTICES OF HEARING WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE ITA 870 & 871/JP/2013_ RAJESH TANWANI VS DCIT 3 LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADING ON SMALL SCALE I N DIAMONDS AND IN LAST FEW YEARS HAS INCURRED HUGE LOSSES. IN THE COUR SE OF INCURRING SUCH BUSINESS LOSSES, THE ASSESSEE WAS HEAVILY ENDEBT AND WAS BEING HOUNDED BY CREDITORS. TO AVOID THIS PREDICAMENT, THE ASSESSE E RAN AWAY FROM JAIPUR TO BOMBAY. THIS IS A REASON THAT NOTICES OF HEARING COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND RESULTING INTO EX PARTE ORDERS. 2.1 IT IS PLEADED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS CASE IN AP PEAL. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS WILL BE DULY ATTENDED. 3. THE LD DR IS HEARD. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS DESIRABLE THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ITS NON-APPEARANCE TO BE DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE I.E. NON SERVICE OF NOTICES FOR HEARINGS. IN VIEW THEREFORE, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING ITA 870 & 871/JP/2013_ RAJESH TANWANI VS DCIT 4 HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DILIGENT IN ATTENDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2015. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 24 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJESH TANWANI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, 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. 870 AND 871/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR