M/S. KALPANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe 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. 195/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke M/s Kalpana The ITO, 119, 3rd Floor Mahadev Nagar, Vs. Ward-5(1), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BIMPK 4068 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Smt. Suhani Maharwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/07/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2020 of ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for the assessment order 2011-12. Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void-ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. M/s Kalpana vs. ITO Consequently the impugned assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 05.11.2018 also kindly be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard which is in violation of natural justice and liable to be set aside.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the condonation of delay of appeal inspite of valid reasons provided by the assessee.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred and simultaneously ld. CIT(A) sustain in adding addition of Rs. 905000/- on account of the alleged unexplained income i.e. Rs. 545000/- time deposits with bank Rs. 360000/- cash deposited in bank the addition is without any basis and unjustified liable to be quashed.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred and simultaneously ld. CIT(A) sustain in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.”

2. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. At the time hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee as stated at bar that the assessee does not press ground no. 1 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed being not pressed. M/s Kalpana vs. ITO

3. Ground no. 2 and 3 are regarding the ex-parte impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and to decline the condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is 72 years old widow living alone and her children are not living with her. Due to her old age, the assessee was not able to hand over the relevant documents before the ld. CIT(A). The AR has pointed out that the assessee is not a regular tax payer and only because certain transactions during the year regarding development of the plot of land the assessee received amount and deposit in the bank account of the assessee, therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case the explanation of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. AR has also pointed out that the assessee has entered into the development agreement with the developer for development of her plot No. 165, Pratap Grih Nirmarn Sahkari Samiti, Vaishali Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur. Under the said development agreement the assessee received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of which Rs. 2,51,000/- through cheque and balance amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- was received in cash. All these facts are narrated in the development agreement itself, therefore, the said documents is relevant for deciding the issue of addition made by the AO M/s Kalpana vs. ITO on account of term deposit as well as cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The ld. AR has also referred to bank account statement of the assessee and submitted that the assessee has withdrawn various amount from her bank account prior to the term deposit as well as cash deposit. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the documents which are now filed by the assessee are available in the public domain and could have been verified by the AO at the time of assessment. If these documents are to be considered then the assessee has explained the source of term deposit of Rs. 5,49,000/- and cash deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/- . Hence, the ld. AR has pleaded that the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal may be condoned and the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.

4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO has given more than sufficient opportunities to the assessee to appear and produce the evidence however, the assessee chosen not to appear either before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A). The notices issued by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) were sent at the address given by the assessee, therefore, the assessee cannot take the excuse of her old age for not complying the notices. The ld. DR has further pointed out that the reasons explained by the assessee are not reasonable explanation M/s Kalpana vs. ITO for not producing the documents before the authorities below.

Accordingly she has relied upon the orders of the authority below and opposed to the admission of additional evidence produced by the assessee.

“2. This appeal has been filed on 25.01.2019 against the order under section 147/144 dated 05.11.2018 of I.T. Act. In the Form No. 3E the date of service of order is stated to be 06.12.2018. As per the service of the assessment order / demand notice dated 05.11.2018, the appeal was to be filed by 05.01.2018 whereas the present appeal is filed on 25.01.2019 i.e. delay of around 20 days. On perusal of Form No. 35, it is seen that the plea of ignorance of law and assessee is aged around 71 years old, has been given by the appellant. The reason for condonation of delay given by the appellant is not a valid reason as she has a qualified Authorized Representative to represent her case. Therefore, the delay is not condoned.”

Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact as explained by the assessee that the assessee is an old widow of 72 years and living alone without support of her children. Therefore, in these facts and 6 M/s Kalpana vs. ITO circumstances of the case the delay of 20 days ought to have been condoned by the ld. CIT(A). Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the assessee being an old widow living alone, we condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत