UMA AGRAWAL, TELIBANDHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 407/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Uma Agrawal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, which arose from an order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The A.O had made additions to the assessee's income based on unexplained investments in immovable property and profits from share transactions, which the assessee contested. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating the assessee was not interested in pursuing it, a claim contested by the assessee who provided evidence of her submissions. The ITAT found procedural errors in the handling of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter for re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469802 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.B DOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uma Agrawal R-3, Aishwarya Residency, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: AHPPA6026Q .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 09.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 2 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 08.07.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 01.11.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,81,79,000/- on account of purchase of immovable property, holding it to be unexplained. The investment was made out of explained sources. The addition made by AO is arbitrary and not justified. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of profit of share transactions. The addition is not justified. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and consequent reassessment order is illegal ab initio void. The reassessment proceedings and re-assessment order are illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O observing that the assessee had not filed her return of income for A.Y.2012-13, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 26.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. 3 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 3. As the assessee failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, the A.O was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment vide an ex-parte order. The A.O taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee during the year under consideration had carried out certain transactions, viz. (i) purchase of immovable property: Rs.2,81,79,000/-; and (ii) share transactions (profit & gain): Rs.3 lacs, thus, made an addition of Rs.2,84,79,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 01.11.2018, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,84,79,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter after deliberating on the facts found no infirmity in the view taken by A.O and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Shri R.B Doshi, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the CIT(Appeals)’s order suffered from a serious infirmity. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) had observed that the assessee appellant 4 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 had failed to furnish any written submission before him, which thus, revealed that he was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid observation of the CIT(Appeals) was incorrect. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings on 05.07.2024 i.e. on the last occasion when the hearing of the appeal was fixed, had uploaded her submissions regarding the respective grounds of appeal a/w. annexures, Page 1 to 7 of APB. The Ld. AR in order to buttress his aforesaid contention, had drawn our attention to the “written submissions” which were filed/uploaded by the assessee with the CIT(Appeals). Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee had placed on record her “written submissions” pertaining to the respective grounds of appeal, based on which, the impugned additions made by the A.O were assailed before the first appellate authority, therefore, it was incorrect on the latter’s part to dismiss the appeal without taking cognizance of the said material. The Ld. AR submitted that as the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) is based on perverse observations which are contrary to the facts borne from the record, therefore, the matter be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) on being confronted with the aforesaid factual position did not controvert the same. 5 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 9. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings on 05.07.2024, had uploaded her written submissions a/w. annexures as can be gathered from Page 1 to 7 of APB. On a careful perusal of the “written submissions” filed by the assessee with the CIT(Appeals), we find that she had assailed the impugned additions that were made by the A.O. Apart from that, it transpires that the assessee had also requested for admission of certain documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 before the CIT(Appeals). Also, we find that the assessee had vide her written submissions, inter alia, assailed the validity of the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon her. Also, we find that the CIT(Appeals) had not only failed to take cognizance of the “written submissions” filed by the assessee, but also contrary to the factual position as borne out from the record, had observed, that the assessee appellant had not filed any written submissions before him. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has not filed any written submission, the appellant has shown that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. Under these 6 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 circumstances, in my opinion the appellant is not interest in the appeal. In view of these facts, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed as it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It is the duty of the appellant to make necessary arrangements for effective representation on the appointed date. Mere filing of an appeal is not enough, rather it requires effective hearing also. Therefore, the appeal is found liable for dismissal…..” 10. Considering the fact that the CIT(Appeals) had failed to take cognizance of the written submissions and annexures that were filed/uploaded by the assessee before him and also, not taken a call on the application filed by the assessee appellant for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, therefore, we are of the view that the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to his file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. As we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the grounds of appeal, based on which, the impugned addition made by the A.O had been assailed by the assessee before us which, thus, are left open. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. 7 Uma Agrawal Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA No. 407/RPR/2024 Order pronounced in open court on 22nd day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 22nd October, 2024. **#SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "