SHRI GAURAV SHARMA, BHARATPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

ITA 911/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4171 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 911/JP/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 GAURAV SHARMA, C/O- RAJIV GOYAL, ADVOCATE, C-162, RANJIT NAGAR, BHARATPUR. C UKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-2, BHARATPUR. PAN NO.: BWWPS 0382 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/10/2020 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 08/05/2019 PASSED /S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAD NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT AND CARING TO VERIFY IT RESULTING INTO GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE NOTICE OF FIXATION OF APPEAL WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT AND DESPITE THIS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER AND DEPRIVED HIM OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA 911/JP/2019_ GAURAV SHARMA VS ITO 2 3. THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- THE LD AO WRONGLY TREATED THE SUM OF RS. 1,42,000/- GIFTED BY THE APPELLANTS FATHER AS INCOME AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THIS FACT. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. THE LD. DR HAS RAISED OBJECTION FOR REMANDING THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS CASE, THEREFORE, NO OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED WITH COST. 4. HAVING HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EITHER BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) EX PARTE. THE A.O. HAS STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT DESPITE PROVIDING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED NOR EVEN BOTHERED TO MAKE ANY WRITTEN COMPLIANCE IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES/LETTERS ISSUED ON VARIOUS ITA 911/JP/2019_ GAURAV SHARMA VS ITO 3 DATES. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED AND THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE BOUNDED DUTY OF THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT ALL STAGES. SINCE, THIS WAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THEREFORE IT WAS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE. NEVERTHELESS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT THE LIS BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DECIDE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE A.O. FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO COST OF RS. 2,000/- TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT OF PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE A.O. IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASON, NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS. ITA 911/JP/2019_ GAURAV SHARMA VS ITO 4 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29/10/2020 *RANJAN VKNS 'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI GAURAV SHARMA, BHARATPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-2, BHARATPUR. 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. 911/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR