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. 858/JP/2018
ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders dated 16/03/2018 and 19/03/2018 of ld. CIT(A), Kota
ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ 2 Narendra Kaur Vs ITO arising from the assessment order U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 and penalty order passed U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds in these appeals:
Grounds of ITA 858/JP/2018 “1. That the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the said appeal order ex parte.
That the ld. A.O. grossly erred in taking action U/s 147/148 of IT Act, 1961.
3. That the ld. A.O. grossly erred in charging tax on long term capital gain on Rs. 1,33,262/-. The assessee claimed deduction U/s 54F and invested the entire net consideration in construction of house then there is nothing to deny to allow deduction U/s 541F. The ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining the addition made by A.O.
Any other ground at the time of the hearing.”
2. The ground No.1 of the appeal is regarding the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is an individual and derives income from business. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of capital gain by disallowing the claim U/s 54F of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, due to non-appearance on behalf of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte and confirmed the disallowance of deduction U/s 54F of the Act.
ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ 3 Narendra Kaur Vs ITO
4. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has made addition on account of long term capital gain by disallowing the claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act. The dispute in this case is identical as in the case of assessee’s husband namely Shri Surendra Singh in ITA No. 859/JP/2018. Since the authorized representative of the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A), consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex parte.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has fairly agreed to the request of the ld. AR for remanding the matter back to the record of the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions as well as material available on record. At the outset we note that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte when nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) that despite four notices and two adjournments, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
We find that the facts emerging from the record of the ld. CIT(A) are identical as in the case of Surendra Singh Vs ITO in ITA No. 859/JP/2018. We have considered the matter in the case of Surendra Singh Vs ITO (supra) vide even dated order as under:
ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ 4 Narendra Kaur Vs ITO
“Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record we note that though the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in the impugned order that despite four notices and two adjournments taken by the assessee, none had appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was finally taken up for hearing. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has not given specific dates on which the appeal was fixed for hearing. We find that the assessee was not given opportunity of effective hearing before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by passing the ex parte order and ld. CIT(A) has not given specific dates of hearing on which the assessee took adjournments and subsequently the date of hearing on which the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A), we set aside the impugned order to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and deciding the appeal on merit.”
Accordingly, we set aside the appeal of the assessee to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In though, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on merits, however, it was also passed ex parte as nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since all these matters arising from identical facts and circumstances, therefore, in the interest of justice, this appeal is also set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for grating one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
ITA 858 & 857/JP/2018_ 5 Narendra Kaur Vs ITO
In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order is pronounced in open court on 16th January, 2019.