Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 108/JP/2021
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 108/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 cuke Padamkar Ghuse, I.T.O., 3 HGA 3 Vigyan Nagar, Vs. Kota. Kota-324004, (Raj.) PAN No.: ABVPG 0871 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kr.Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/11/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 30/06/2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13. Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1.1 & 1.2 The impugned order u/s 148/144 dated 08.11.2019, as well as the action taken u/s 147/148 are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-intio on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval and satisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act, and also barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.3 The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party Assessment order in 2 ITA 108/JP/2021_ Padamkar Ghuse Vs ITO gross breach of law without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence the assessment so made and consequent addition so made may kindly be quashed and delete.
2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order by not providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is against the principal of natural justice and in gross breach of law and the order of the CIT(A) is also illegal bad in invalid and void ab-initio. Hence the order of the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the entire additions may kindly be deleted in full.
3. Rs.8,37,137/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,37,137/- made by the Id. AO u/s 69B on account of Interest received of Rs.72,428/-from bank, time deposits and cash deposits to the extent of Rs.7,37,915/- totalling to Rs.8,37,137/- as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the penalty may kindly be deleted in full.]
The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.
5. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.
3 ITA 108/JP/2021_ Padamkar Ghuse Vs ITO
At the outset, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the A.O. as well as the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had decided the case of the assessee ex parte as no reasonable opportunity of hearing were provided to the assessee. It was also submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee for hearing. Therefore, ld AR requested the Bench to restore the appeal to the record of the A.O. for deciding the issue involved afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
It was also submitted that assesse would cooperate with the authorities in timely disposal of the case.
4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has objected to the prayer for remanding the matter and submitted that earlier also the assessee has not appeared either before the A.O. and before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case, therefore, no opportunity should be given to the assessee. Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. NFAC ex parte. It is also an undisputed fact the A.O. has passed the assessment order ex parte. It was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Revenue authorities at all stages. Since, this was the assessee’s
4 ITA 108/JP/2021_ Padamkar Ghuse Vs ITO appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before A.O. as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demands that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we decide to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and we set aside the impugned order of the NFAC, Delhi and remand the matter back to the record of the A.O. for deciding the issue afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the A.O. in deciding the appeal on merits and without any sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2021.