JYOTIBEN DILIPBHAI KANABAR,MORBI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI

ITA 70/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by Jyotiben Dilipbhai Kanabar against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were based on the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals pertain to the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The primary contention was that the lower authorities had passed ex parte orders without providing a fair hearing to the appellant. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the appellant's income under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the appellant's lack of literacy and support, and the ex parte nature of the proceedings, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473470 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL DESAI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 144; 68; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 70, 71 & 72/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11 to 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Jyotiben Dilipbhai Kanabar, Vasant Plot Street No. 8, Near Chakiya Hanuman, Ravapar Road, Morbi-363641. Vs. The I.T.O., Ward 1, Morbi. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: APIPK 2468 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER: DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: These three appeals are filed by the appellant directed against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”] all dated 23/01/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), all dated 28/11/2017. Common identical grounds of appeal have been raised by the appellant in all these appeals. Facts and submissions of both the parties are similar, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these three appeals are clubbed, heard and are deciding by this common order. As ITA 70 to 72/Rjt/2024 Jyotiben Dilipbhai Kanabar Vs ITO Page | 2 a lead case, we take ITA No. 70/Rjt/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 as a lead case. 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submitted that both the lower authorities have passed ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order by making additions of Rs. 13,75,800/- under Section 69A of the Act and Rs. 42,92,718/- under Section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), on appeal before him, confirmed the action taken by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to the appellant and prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that he undertakes on behalf of appellant to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr.DR has not objected to the prayer of the appellant. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposit of Rs. 13,75,800/- in her bank account and the appellant has also failed to discharge the burden of proof to identity, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions in respect of credit entries worth Rs. 42,92,718/- shown in the record of the appellant. The appellant has not ITA 70 to 72/Rjt/2024 Jyotiben Dilipbhai Kanabar Vs ITO Page | 3 explained the case before the Assessing Officer in a proper way and not complied with the notices sent by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We note that the appellant is illiterate lady and has no support and also she is not well versed with the income tax cases. We find that both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex- parte proceedings, therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the appellant to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The appellant is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The appellant is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes only. 5. ITA No. 71 and 72/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. In both these appeals the facts and grounds are identical and the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act. Therefore, in these appeals also, our finding given in ITA No. 70/Rjt/2024 for the A.Y. 2010-11 shall apply mutatis mutandis. ITA 70 to 72/Rjt/2024 Jyotiben Dilipbhai Kanabar Vs ITO Page | 4 6. In the combines result, all these three appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 18/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "