SMT. BEENA JAIN,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

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. 486/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Smt. Beena Jain The ACIT, Vs. G-1-317(C), Road No. 6, Circle-1, IPIA, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABJPJ 3132 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri N. Kataria (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri K.C. Gupta (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/12/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2019 of the ld. CIT(A), Kota for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds:-

“1. The assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is bad in law as well as on facts of the present case and hence, the same may please be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard and passing the order without any representation on the matter from the assessee.

Smt. Beena Jain vs. ACIT

.”

2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte and no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee before passing the impugned order. He has submitted that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were received by the employee of the assessee one Shri Ankit Kumar Jain but he did not informed about the notices either to the assessee or to the authorized representative Shri Arpit Jain (C.A.) who was to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. AR has submitted that due to some communication gap, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee on the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR thus submitted that the assessee also given E-mail ID in form 35 however, no notice was sent through E-mail to the assessee. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the ld. CIT(A). He has submitted that the assessee filed an affidavit of Shir Ankit Kumar Jain wherein he has 2 Smt. Beena Jain vs. ACIT made a sworn statement that he has received notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) but could not informed the authorized representative on the bonafide belief that the authorized representative must be knowing the status of hearing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus the ld. AR has pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside and matter be remanded back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently opposed the remand of the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) issued 5 notices to the assessee and despite various notices nobody has appeared before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee before passing the present order.

4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. On perusal of the impugned order we find that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) despite notices dated 25.07.2017, 16.10.2017, 02.08.2018, 26.10.2018 & 26.11.2018 were issued by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has now explained the cause of none appearance that the person who is looking after the tax matter on behalf of the assessee proprietorship concern received notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) however, he did not apprise the authorized representative about the notice, date of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the bonafide belief that the authorized representative Mr. Arpit Jain (CA) must be aware the date of hearings the assessee has filed an affidavit of Shri Anki Kumar Jain wherein he has explained Smt. Beena Jain vs. ACIT circumstances under which he did not inform the authorized representative of the assessee about the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and date of hearing of the appeal. Though the ld. CIT(A) granted various opportunity to the assessee by issuing the above stated notices however, once the assessee has explained the facts and circumstances and cause of none appearance then in the interest of justice, we allow one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present her case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remand back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We make it clear that if the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) then the opportunity granted by us shall stand vacated.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/02/2020.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07/02/2020. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Beena Jain, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-1, Kota. 4 Smt. Beena Jain vs. ACIT