Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAOvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 122/JP/2020
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 122/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 cuke Shri Pramod Sharma The ITO, Vs. F-25, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Ward-6(2), C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMVPS 3969 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement :15 /10/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.11.2019 of ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by CIT(Appeals)-2, Jaipur by dismissing the appeal of assessee despite authorised representative requesting the adjournment is invalid in law and against the concept of natural justice even. The said order needs to be declared invalid in law and accordingly be quashed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) is not clear in his assessment order that whether the addition made by him in his opinion falls into section 69 or section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequently the addition made is not sustainable in law hence needs to be quashed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur thereby making an addition of Rs. 4,44,074/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is arbitrary in nature, based on surmisesand contrary to the settled position of law hence liable to be quashed.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur also erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.16,312/- under section 80C of the Income Tax to the Assessee.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur grossly erred in determining the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year at Rs. 5,36,960/- therefore same deserves to be quashed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same is required to be quashed.”
The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or modify the ground(s) of the appeal.”
2. Hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by refusing the adjournment sought by the ld. AR of the assessee. He has further submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for non appearance before the ld. CIT(A) and requested for adjournment of the hearing as the assessee wanted to submit certain additional evidences to support his claim. The ld. CIT(A) has declined to grant the adjournment application of the assessee and decided the appeal ex-parte. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee can file additional evidence in support of the claim.
3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A)has granted as many as 14 opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not attend the proceedings or filed any written submissions. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) was having no option but to decide the appeal ex-parte.
I have considered the rival submissions, affidavits filed by the assessee as well as perused the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). There is no dispute that the ld. CIT(A) has granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present his case however, kept on seeking adjournment.
Since, the assessee wanted to file additional evidence which is required to be verified by the authority below, therefore, non speaking orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal of the assessee summarily make out a case for grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the merit of the case and further, when the assessee was seeking time to file the additional evidence. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the additional evidence if any file by the assessee. purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on15 /10/2020.
Sd/- ¼ fot; iky jko ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL; @Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/10/2020 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Pramod Sharma, Jaipur. 1. izR;Fkh@ The Respondent- ITO, ward-6(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 122/JP/2020) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत