SHRI RAVI SHANKAR, DHOLPURA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, BHARATPUR

ITA 898/JPR/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ravi Shankar, a wine contractor, who appealed against the order of the ld. CIT (A), Alwar, which was passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the dismissal of his appeal in limine without a decision on merits, which he argued was incompetent and illegal. The assessee had previously faced scrutiny under CASS, and despite multiple opportunities to present his case and evidence, he failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT (A) on grounds of non-prosecution. The Tribunal, after considering the repeated non-compliance by the assessee but prioritizing natural justice, decided to remand the case back to the CIT (A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132287 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 250; 143(2); 44AB

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 laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 898/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. Shri Ravi Shankar, Wine Contractor, Gram Jagmohan Ka Pura, Post – Silavat, Rajakheda, Dholpur.( Raj. ) cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ASHPR 7458 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 3/05/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.12.2018 of ld. CIT (A), Alwar passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (A) Alwar is incompetent to dismiss the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard before dismissing appeal in default. The order is per-se illegal and bad in law. 2 ITA No. 898/JP/2019 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts in not providing last opportune being here before dismissing the appeal in default. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts in not passing speaking order which is the requirement of natural justice and fairness in proceeding. 5. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing. However, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeal on merit. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in retail business of English and Country made liquor under the name and style of M/s. Ravi Shankar Wine Contractor at Dholpur. The assessee filed e-return declaring total income of Rs. 2,18,940/- on 31.12.2014. During the year under consideration, the assessee continues to derive his income under the head Income from Business and has declared GP rate of 16.32% on total turnover of Rs. 1,34,79,287/- as against GP rate of 9.16% on total turnover of Rs. 1,11,53,958/- declared in the immediately preceding year, thereby having an increase in GP ratio by 7.14% in comparison to last financial year i.e. 2012-13. The assessee maintained its books of account on mercantile basis and its accounts were audited under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS. The notice under section 143(2) was issued on 31.08.2015 fixing the date of hearing on 18.09.2015 and on transfer of the case from ITO Agra again notice under section 143(2) was issued on 29.09.2015 fixing the date of hearing on 07.10.2015. This notice was duly served on the 3 ITA No. 898/JP/2019 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur. assessee. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on various dates by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 as under :- S.No. Date of notice issued Date of hearing 1. 04.05.2016 13.05.2016 2. 30.05.2016 08.06.2016 3. 16.08.2016 24.08.2016 4. 24.10.2016 31.10.2016 5. 30.11.2016 06.12.2016 The assessee was asked to furnish necessary details/information as per notice under section 142(1) along with query letter dated 04.05.2016. In compliance, the assessee produced copy of ITR, computation of total income along with copy of audit report and form No. 26AS but not produced any evidence regarding commission paid and expenses incurred. After taking into consideration the documents/information submitted by the assessee, the AO completed the assessment at Rs. 12,56,210/- by disallowing various expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non prosecution. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of various opportunities given to the assessee nor submitted any written submission. 5. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the material on record and also gone through orders of the revenue authorities. On going through the impugned order, 4 ITA No. 898/JP/2019 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur. we note that the ld. CIT (A) has decided the appeal of the assessee by observing in para 3.1 to 3.3 of his order as under :- “ 3.1. In this case, notices u/s 250 was issued to the appellant on several occasions fixing the hearing on 08.08.2018, 27.09.2018 and 27.11.2018. No one attended. Opportunity of being heard is central to any adjudication process but that does not absolve the appellant from non attendance and submission of evidences in support of ground of appeal despite repeated and several notices sent and served and not responded. An adjudication proceeding cannot be held in abeyance indefinitely on account of non attendance of the appellant or his AR. In this case the continued non responsive attitude of the appellant has left no option before me but to decide the appeal on the basis of evidences on record. 3.2. I have taken into consideration the facts of the case filed along with Form No. 35. 3.3. In absence of any submissions by the appellant in support of its claims, I have relied upon the facts mentioned in the penalty order. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere in the penalty order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” The ld. CIT (A) has decided the appeal considering that the appellant has been unable to furnish any supporting evidence in support of grounds of appeal or produce any material to controvert the findings contained in the assessment order thereby the burden of proof of explaining the commission paid and expenses incurred remain un-discharged. Thus it is evident that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution as the assessee has not availed so many opportunities given to the assessee to controvert the findings contained in the assessment order. From the entire sequence of events and the conduct of the assessee in non compliance of the repeated notices, it appears gross negligence on the part of the assessee and wastage of precious time. In our considered view, non compliance of notice issued by the Authorities and non appearance before the 5 ITA No. 898/JP/2019 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur. Authorities inspite of repeated notices/summons is dis-regard towards the Authorities. Be that as it may, without going into merits, considering the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity is granted to the assessee, and the file is restored back to the ld. CIT (A) for deciding the matter afresh after considering the arguments as well as the documentary evidence, if any, to be filed by the assessee, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Care Fund and proof thereof should be produced. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 3/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@ Jaipur fnukad@ Dated:- 3/05/2023. Das/ vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ravi Shankar, Dholpur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO Ward-4, Bharatpur. 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. 898/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 6 ITA No. 898/JP/2019 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur.