Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2007 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-10-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
20-10-2016
Judgement Text
ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA S/O SHRI NARAYAN SHARMA VILLAGE & POST: SARANGPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ARKPS 0610 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 915/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI CHOUTHMAL SHARMA S/O NARAYAN SHARMA VILLAGE & POST: SARANGPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: BOVPS 2251 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 916/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI HANUMAN SAHAI SHARMA S/O SHRI NARAYAN SHARMA VILLAGE & POST: SARANGPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: FWEPS 5511 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 2 VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 917/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI GHASI RAM SHARMA S/O SHRI NARAYAN SHARMA VILLAGE & POST: SARANGPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AKAPR 2783 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 918/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PRAHLAD SAHAY SHARMA S/O SHRI LADU RAM SHARMA VILLAGE & POST: SARANGPURA TEHSIL: SANGANER, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 7(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: BFIPS 2370 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/09/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFF ERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR DATED 09-08 -2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE'S ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 3 ITA NO.914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA 1.1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147 DATED 21-01-2014 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE GR OSS BREACH OF LAW. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADD ITIONS SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FATS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OR NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER TAKING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM THAT DATE THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN TIME. HEN CE, THE APPEAL SO NOT ADMITTED OR CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED OR CONDONED THE SAME BY YOUR HONOUR OR MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO LD . CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECTED TO LD. CIT(A) . 3. RS. 21,00,634/-:- THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS . 21,00,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS P ER I.T. ACT, THUS THE AO ERRED IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TO TALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 4 4. RS. 12,58,202/-:-THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF R S. 12,58,202/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 4,500/-: THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,5 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A O AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. 6. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY O F CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE, THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FATS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULLY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYES YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.915/JP/2016 SHRI CHOUTHMAL SHARMA 1.1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147 DATED 21-01-2014 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE GR OSS BREACH OF LAW. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 5 HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADD ITIONS SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FATS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OR NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER TAKING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM THAT DATE THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN TIME. HEN CE, THE APPEAL SO NOT ADMITTED OR CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED OR CONDONED THE SAME BY YOUR HONOUR OR MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO LD . CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECTED TO LD. CIT(A) . 3. RS. 21,00,634/-:- THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS . 21,00,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS P ER I.T. ACT, THUS THE AO ERRED IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TO TALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. RS. 15,00,230/-:-THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF R S. 15,00,230/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 5,801/-: THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,8 01/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A O AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 6 6. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY O F CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE, THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FATS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULLY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYES YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.916/JP/2016 SHRI HANUMAN SAHAI SHARMA 1.1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147 DATED 21-01-2014 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE GR OSS BREACH OF LAW. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADD ITIONS SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FATS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OR NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER TAKING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM THAT DATE THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN TIME. HEN CE, THE APPEAL SO NOT ADMITTED OR CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED OR CONDONED THE SAME BY YOUR HONOUR OR MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO LD . CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECTED TO LD. CIT(A) . ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 7 3. RS. 21,00,634/-:- THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS . 21,00,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS P ER I.T. ACT, THUS THE AO ERRED IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TO TALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. RS. 13,0,460/-:-THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF R S. 13,60,460/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 6,093/-: THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,0 93/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A O AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. 6. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY O F CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE, THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FATS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULLY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYES YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 8 ITA NO.917/JP/2016 SHRI GHASI RAM SHARMA 1.1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147 DATED 21-01-2014 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE GR OSS BREACH OF LAW. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADD ITIONS SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FATS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OR NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER TAKING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM THAT DATE THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN TIME. HEN CE, THE APPEAL SO NOT ADMITTED OR CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED OR CONDONED THE SAME BY YOUR HONOUR OR MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO LD . CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECTED TO LD. CIT(A) . 3. RS. 21,00,634/-:- THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS . 21,00,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS P ER I.T. ACT, THUS THE AO ERRED IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TO TALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 9 4. RS. 20,53,575/-:-THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF R S.20,53,575/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 6,655/-: THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,6 55/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A O AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. 6. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY O F CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE, THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FATS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULLY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYES YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. ITA NO.918/JP/2016 SHRI PRAHLAD SAHAY SHARMA 1.1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147 DATED 21-01-2014 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE GR OSS BREACH OF LAW. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 10 HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADD ITIONS SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FATS OF THE CASE IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPEAL OR NOT CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FI LING OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AFTER TAKING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM THAT DATE THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN TIME. HEN CE, THE APPEAL SO NOT ADMITTED OR CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED OR CONDONED THE SAME BY YOUR HONOUR OR MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO LD . CIT(A) IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DIRECTED TO LD. CIT(A) . 3. RS. 21,00,634/-:- THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS . 21,00,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ENTIRE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS P ER I.T. ACT, THUS THE AO ERRED IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION IS TO TALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. RS. 13,59,160/-:-THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF R S. 13,59,160/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 6,748/-: THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,7 48/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST. HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A O AND NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 11 6. THE AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY O F CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE, THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FATS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULLY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYES YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2.1 THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN SUM MARILY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND OF LATE FILING OF APPEALS OF APPROX. 180 DAYS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAHLAD SAHAY SHARMA (ITA NO.918/J P/2016) IS AS UNDER:- 4.3 THE MAIN REASONS STATED FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPE AL ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE . ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE FACTS S TATED BY THE APPELLANT FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL ARE FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. THE APP ELLANT IS CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.01.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN DI SPATCHED ON 28.01.2014 AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WAS NEVER R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT SUCH CONTENTION IS NOT CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE AS SESSMENT ORDER 21.01.2014 HAS BEEN SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON THE ADDRESS AS MENTIONED IN FORM 35 THUS IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ADDRESS WAS CHANGED. IT MAY B E NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED ON 21.01.2014, DISPATCHED ON 28.01. 2014 THROUGH REGISTERED POST AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 28.08.2014, I.E BY DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY 180 DAYS AND PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH DELAY. IT MAY ALSO BE STATED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL CAN BE CO NDONED ONLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED WITH REASONABLE DILIGE NCE. FOR SUCH FINDING RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) BRIJ INDER SINGH VS. KANSHI RAM AIR 1917-PC-156 (II) BARODA RAYON CORPORATION LTD. (GUJ.) 87 STC 266 (III) BALDEO LAL ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR (1960) 11 STC 104 (PAT.) (IV) M. LOGANATHAN VS. CIT (MAD.) 302 ITR 139 ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 12 THE REASONS FOR LATE FILING OF THE APPEAL AS CITED ABOVE CANNOT SAID TO BE BONA-FIDE AND THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS NOT FOUND FIT FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY. AS THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 249 (2) OF IT ACT AND THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT CONDONED, THEREFORE, THE AP PEAL IS REJECTED BEING AB-INITIO VOID. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY NOT REQ UIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD.AR OF THE A SSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE AO HAD NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAD ALSO NOT GRANTED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN LATE FILING THE ABOVE APPEALS. THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE HAD GENUINE REASONS AS THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS ON ACC OUNT OF NOT GETTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TH E CERTIFIED COPIES BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY OF THE CASE, THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE ISSUE OF NOT A LLOWING CONDONATION OF DELAY BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE APPEL LANT IS A LAYMAN, AND AN ILLITERATE PERSON NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE TAX LAWS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TIME. HE CAM TO KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER WHEN THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR PENALTY WAS SERVED ON HIM AND HE CONTACT ED A CA TO SEEK HIS ADVICE. IT IS AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO SUPPLY A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM. IMMEDIATELY ON RECE IPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED. THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORING THE T RUE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM IN THIS REGARD, REJECTED THE APPEAL AS BEING TIME BARRED. THE REQUEST MADE TO THE AO FOR OBTAINI NG CERTIFIED COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER B OOK. IN THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE APPEAL CONDONING THE DELAY AND DECIDED IT ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, T HE APPELLANT CRAVES THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL B E DECIDED ON MERITS. ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 13 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECTIVE APPEALS. 2.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAD PASSED THE SEPA RATE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 21-01-2014 WHICH WERE DISPATCHED ON 28-01-2014. HOW EVER, THESE ASSESSEE'S CLAIMED THAT THESE ORDERS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THEM . THUS THE ORDERS WERE MADE AND DISPATCHED IN TIME BUT THESE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM T HAT THESE ORDERS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THEM. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES APPLIED FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUMMARILY REJE CTED THE APPEAL OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S VIDE HER SEPARATE ORDER DATED 09-08-2016 BEING TIME BARRED AND NOT ALLOWING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSE E, IT WILL BE IN INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPE AL BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE'S. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE EFFORTS SHOUL D BE MADE TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSIN G THE SAME ON TECHNICAL REASONS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SCENARIO IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE'S, IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO RESTOR E THE ABOVE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THEM AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVI DING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. THE RESPE CTIVE ASSESSEES ARE ALSO ITA NO. 914/JP/2016 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA VS ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 14 DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/ PAP ERS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION CONCERNING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. THUS THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEE'S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE'S A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 /10/201 7. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 /10/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- (1) SHRI JAGIDSH SHARMA (2), CHAUTH MAL SHARMA (3) HANUMAN SAHAY SHARMA, (4) GHASI RAM SHARMA (5) PRAH LAD SAHAY SHARMA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 7(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 914 TO 918/JP/2016 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026