SMT. VANDANA BAJPAI, Ratlam V. SMT. ITO-1, Ratlam

MA 78/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5231 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T H KHAMOSHI
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VANDANA BAJPAI MA NO.78 OF 2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.78/IND/2016 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.510/IND/2015&CO 1/IND/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 VANDANA BAJPAI L/H AND W/O LATE RAJENDRA BAJPAI, RATLAM PAN ABHPB 5645 C :: APPELLANT VS ITO-1, RATLAM :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI KAIDE KANGSAWALA AND SHRI T.H. KHAMOSHI RESPONDENT BY SHRI K.G. GOYAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 13.1.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.1.2017 O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM THE ABOVE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 13.7.2016. 2. THIS MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: VANDANA BAJPAI MA NO.78 OF 2016 2 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY THE AO U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, UNDER VERY EXCEPTIONAL AND PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN AS MUCH AS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI RAJENDRA BAJPAI MET WITH ROAD ACCIDENT AND EXPIRED ON THE SPOT IN NOVEMBER, 2012, HIS FATHER SURYAKANT BAJPAI WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE MATTERS OF HIS SON RAJENDRA EXPIRED BY SU DDEN HEART ATTACK IN JUNE 2013 AND FURTHERMORE THE TAX CONSULT ANT, C.A. OF LATE SHRI AJAY PAVECHA DIED IN JANUARY 2014, AND UN DER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT ALL IN A POSI TION TO PROPERLY AND ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THE CASE OF HER L ATE HUSBAND RAJENDRA BAJPAI. THE AO HAS COLLECTED INFORMATION R EGARDING BANK ACCOUNTS OF LATE SHRI RAJENDRA BAJPAI FROM THE CONCERNED BANKS AS WELL AS FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR, RATLAM IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY LATE SHRI RAJENDRA B AJPAI AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION MADE HUGE ADDITIONS I N THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) RELEVANT ACCOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF LATE SHRI RAJENDRA BAJPAI AS WELL AS INFORMATION REGARDING CASH TRANSACITONS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK AS WELL AS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAIN TAINED BY LATE SHRI RAJENDRA BAJPAI. AS SUCH, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS STATED ABOVE, THE CIT( A) WAS VALIDLY JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR FINAL IZATION OF THE APPEAL. 5. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION FI THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO CONSIDERI NG THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE M AY FILE BEFORE HIM. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJE CTION TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR ADJUDI CATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. VANDANA BAJPAI MA NO.78 OF 2016 3 3. THE LEARNED ARS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HEY HAVE NEVER SUBMITTED EITHER IN WRITING OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. THE LD.AR OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WAS PRONOUNCED THAT THE REV ENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATTER HAS BEEN REMA NDED, THEREFORE, THIS MA IS FILED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND FROM THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL THAT TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED THE MATTER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHATEVER IT MAY BE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE M UST FEEL THAT LAW JUSTICE SHOULD BE DONE LITIGANT FEEL THAT JUSTICE H AS BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHATEVER THE FACTS MAY BE BUT WE RECALL OUR ORDER AND MATTER IS REFIXED FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. VANDANA BAJPAI MA NO.78 OF 2016 4 ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.1.2017 . SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13.1.2017