RAM GOPAL GUPTA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 960/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5374 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non compliance

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 EQDQY DS-JKOR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEM BER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 960/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000. SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA, PROP. M/S. BADRI PRASAD RAM GOPAL, 18, CLOCK TOWER, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABTPG 9799 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS), ALWAR DATED 17.10.2013. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 IS THAT THIS APPEAL WAS WRONGLY DISMISSED EX PARTE BY LD. CIT (A) WITHOUT G RANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IN THIS GROUND IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ME NTIONED THAT THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2013 BUT ON THAT DAY THE LD. CIT (A) WAS ON LEAVE. THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE ON 17.10. 2013 WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 960/JP/2013 SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA VS. ITO 3. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND DISMIS SED THE APPEAL IN LIMINI DUE TO NON ATTENDANCE OR NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. ALTH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS WHICH WERE IN RESPECT OF INVE STMENT IN PURCHASE OF GUWAR OF RS. 4,75,150 AND ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CAS H RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,75,000/-. I HAVE EXAMINED THE FUNCTIONING OF LD. CIT (A) AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE IT ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. AS I HAVE NOTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WAS LACKING ON THESE POINTS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH AN ORDER IS SUPPOSED TO BE PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3.1. SIDE BY SIDE I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THIS APPEA L WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON FEW OCCASIONS, THE DATES ARE DULY MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT (A), BUT REMAINED UNATTENDED. THIS KIND OF CONDUCT OF AN APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED. IN ANY CASE NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO A LITIGANT INSTEAD OF THROWING A LITIGANT OUT OF LITIGATION AT THE VERY THRESHOLD BECAUSE OF NON ATTENDANCE MAY BE DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE REASONS. FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MAST. KATIJI AND BROTHERS, 167 ITR 471 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL AND TECHNICAL CONSID ERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED. THEREFORE, I HEREBY DEEM IT PROPER AND JUSTIFIABLE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF QUANTUM ADDITION AS OBJECTED IN 3 ITA NO. 960/JP/2013 SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA VS. ITO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT ( A) TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS, NEEDLESS TO SAY AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMULTANEOUSLY I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO SUO MOTO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT (A) EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE WITHIN 30 DAYS ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT WAI T FOR ANY FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING AND DIRECTED TO APPEAR AND COOPERATE WITH THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED AT AN EARLY DATE. NEVERTHELESS, THE LD. CIT (A) IS FREE TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER AS DEEMED FIT AS PER LAW. AS A RESULT, THE G ROUNDS RAISED MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/201 6. SD/- EQDQY DS-JKOR (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04/03/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR. 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.960/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO. 960/JP/2013 SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA VS. ITO