Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9763 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-06-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
19-07-2019
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 973/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S SHARDA RURAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI C/O SANSKAR BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL, VILLAGE- NANGLI BALAHIR, TEHSIL- MEENRANA, BEHROR-301708. CUKE VS. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAJCS 0353 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHANI MAHARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 19.03.2019 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2014-15. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. 2. THERE IS DELAY OF 62 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF ITA NO. 973/JP/2019 M/S SHARDA RURAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI VS. ITO(E) 2 DELAY WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MEDICAL RECORD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE LD. DR ON CONDONATION OF DELAY. AFTER GOING THROUGH CONTENTS OF THE APPLI CATION, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS WELL AS MEDICAL REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILI NG THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. AS PER MEDICAL RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC MENTAL DISORDER FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 62 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SES, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTIC E AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS ES, LD. AO ERRED AND SIMULTANEOUSLY LD. CIT(A) SUSTAIN THE DI SALLOWANCE OF CREDIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(1) FOR RS. 800000/- W ITHOUT APPRECIATING REVISED FORM NO. 10WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIE D AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS ES, LD. AO ERRED AND SIMULTANEOUSLY LD. CIT(A) SUSTAIN THE DI SALLOWANCE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME OF RS. 1350110/- WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO HIM WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 973/JP/2019 M/S SHARDA RURAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI VS. ITO(E) 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE LD. DR A ND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASS ING THE EX-PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER DUE TO NON APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS ILLNESS. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND TH EREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMA ND THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:-30/06/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 973/JP/2019 M/S SHARDA RURAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI VS. ITO(E) 4 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S SHARDA RURAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMIT I, BEHROR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO(E), WARD, ALWAR. 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. 973/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Expert Summary
Where the assessee did not appear for appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same is supported by adequate evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot pass an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of natural justice and also without appreciating the material available on hand. The Hon'ble Tribunal thus set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Convertible Note Agreement
Mehul₹5000
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026