Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 79/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, 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. 79/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Ashok Ghiya, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-6, Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Ward 6(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPG 1596 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25/02/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/02/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07/11/2017 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Lower authorities grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,00,123/- by holding that less profit was disclosed by the assessee from its commodity trading/share trading business.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Lower authorities grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,00,885/- by holding that closing stock of shares was not disclosed in the balance sheet.
ITA 79/JP/2018_ 2 Ashok Ghiya Vs ITO
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. lower authorities grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 10,13,000/- by holding that the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee is unexplained cash deposit and addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act has been made.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte by rejecting the request for adjournment. He has further submitted that since the ld. counsel for the assessee was not having the necessary record to prepare the case, he applied for adjournment on 26/10/2017.
However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the request and passed the impugned ex parte order. Hence, the ld AR has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
3. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently opposed the prayer of the ld AR and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted ten opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not appear on any of the hearing before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is a case of gross negligence and non-cooperative conduct on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) finally was left with no option but to pass the impugned ex parte order.
ITA 79/JP/2018_ 3 Ashok Ghiya Vs ITO
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. We note that the appeal against the assessment order was filed on 31/3/2014 and thereafter the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing of the appeal but nobody on behalf of the assessee appeared before the ld. CIT(A). The relevant details of the dates of hearing and adjournment sought by the assessee are given in para 2.1 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order, which is reproduced as under: Date of hearing fixed Remarks 08.01.2016 Filed adjournment letter, case adjourned to 25.01.2016 25.01.2016 Filed adjournment letter, case adjourned to 08.02.2016 08.02.2016 On AR request case adjourned to 14.03.2016 14.03.2016 Filed adjournment letter, case adjourned to 05.04.2016 05.04.2016 On AR request case adjourned to 13.05.2016 13.05.2016 None attended 26.05.2016 Filed adjournment letter, case adjourned to 20.06.2016 20.06.2016 Filed adjournment letter, case adjourned to 06.07.2016 12.12.2016 None attended 26.10.2017 Filed adjournment letter, same was rejected. It is clear from the above details that as many as ten opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT(A) and on all ten occasions, the assessee did not come forward to argue the appeal. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that he has sought adjournment on 26/10/2017 as certain documents required from the assessee, were not provided till that date.
We find that after filing of the appeal on 31/3/2014, the assessee did not provide the relevant documents till 26/10/2017, therefore, the conduct of the assessee was non-cooperative and amounting to delaying tactics of ITA 79/JP/2018_ 4 Ashok Ghiya Vs ITO hearing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking a lenient view, we set aside the matter back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands only) with direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for hearing. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th February, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ashok Ghiya, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(1), 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. 79/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत