Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1387/JP/2018
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. 1387/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Smt. Shivani Khandelwal The ITO, Vs. B-16 Samarpan Housing Society, Ward-1(2), Tandalja Vasna Road, B/h Sabri Ajmer. Vidyalaya New Comples, Vadodara- Gujarat. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AZGPK 0147 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Jai Singh (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/05/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/05/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2018 of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer for the assessment order 2014-15. 2. There is delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has explained the delay in the application for condonation of delay which has been supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO
We have heard the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit. The assesee has explained the cause that she has permanently sifted Baroda, Gujarat and was not able to collect the necessary documents and take steps to file the appeal before the tribunal within the period of limitation. Thus there was delay of 4 days for arranging necessary record and preparing the appeal through Chartered Accountant. Having considered the rival submissions and the cause of delay explained by the assessee we are satisfy that the assessee has explained the reasonable cause for delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-parte order.
On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without actually giving opportunity of being heard as stated in the order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 63,80,732/- U/s 56(2)(b) on account of stamp duty value of flat.
On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of income from other sources. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
At the outset, we note that vide order dated 12.03.2018 the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity hearing to the assessee. The relevant part of the order dated 12.03.2018 has been reduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 2 as under:-
“2.0 The ITAT, Jaipur vide order dated 12.03.2018 (ITA No. 757/JP/2017), set-aside the issue in Ground No. 1 to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/-, observing at para 5 as under:- “5 Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record at the outset, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has granted number of opportunity to the assessee for attending the hearing as recorded in para 3 of the impugned order as under:- “3.0 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 27.04.2017,17.05.2017,05.06.2017, 19.06.2017, 04.07.2017 and 18.07.2017. No one has attended on any of the date of hearing and no written submission has been filed. Therefore, the appeal is decided after going through the assessment order and grounds of appeal as under.”
The main grievance of the assessee in this matter is the adoption of the value of the flat u/s 50C of the Act and consequential addition u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act. However, we note that once the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee cannot take a plea of shifting his residence from Ajmer to 3 Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO
Badodra for non appearance before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, it is a clear case of causal and negligent conduct of the assessee for not pursuing the appear and appearing before the ld. CIT(A) after filing the appeal. We further note that the assessee in the written submissions as reproduced by the Assessing Officer raised the objection against the adoption of value as determined by the stamp duty valuation authority as per provisions of Section 50C and consequential addition u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act though no specific request was made by the assessee for reference of the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue in ground no. 1 to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunities to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/-. We make it clear that the opportunity granted by us shall stand vacated in case the assessee fails to appear before the ld. CIT(A) in the remand proceeding.”
The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal when nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee in set aside proceeding. We find that the appeal of the assessee was again dismissed in summary for want of any written submission or appearing on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has issued notice to the assessee at the old address of Ajmer whereas the assessee has already explained in the first round of appeal that she has permanently sifted to Baroda, Gujarat therefore, due to non receipt of notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not cause presence before the ld. CIT(A). He has Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO filed an affidavit of the assessee to explain the reasons for not attending before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that despite the opportunity given by the Tribunal in the first round of appeal that too subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- the assessee again did not attend the hearing before the ld. CIT(A).
Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record we note that in the earlier round of appeal the Tribunal after considering the explanation of the assessee for non appearance before the ld. CIT(A) due to change of address as the assessee shifted from Ajmer Rajasthan to Baroda, Gujarat the matter was set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order again mentioned the old address of the assessee of Ajmer, Rajasthan and therefore, it is apparent that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceeding were not received by the assessee due to the reasons that she has already shifted to Baroda, Gujarat. It appears that due to non availability of the current address before the ld. CIT(A) the notice was again issued as the old address. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO again set aside the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The current/fresh address of the assessee is being given in this order in the memo of parties and the assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) along with a copy of this order within a period of two months from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2019.
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:- 15/05/2019. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Shivani Khandelwal, Vadadara. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Ajmer. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 1387/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत 6