SHRI SURENDRA SINGH,BUNDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

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. 859/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2006-07 cuke Surendra Singh, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward No. 10, main market, Bundi. Keshorai Patan, Bundi. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AZAPS 0338 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B.V. Maheshwari (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/01/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26/03/2018 of ld. CIT(A), Kota for the A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the ld. CIT(A), Kota have grossly erred in passing the appeal order ex parte. The ld. CIT(A) issued notice in past- but not on or before date of order there was no notice of hearing which is coming up from the first page of appeal order itself.

2. That the ld. A.O. grossly erred in not allowing the exemption u/s 54F on investment of long term capital gain for purchase of house. That the ld. A.O. stated that there can be no purchase on Ikrarnama, which is ill confined and when the possession has been given then the property have been purchased in all respect and hence deduction is to be allowed u/s 54F of I.T. Act, 1961.

ITA 859/JP/2018_ 2 Surendra Singh Vs ITO

Further the ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. A.O. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend the grounds of appeal

.”

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 engaged in the activity of Hatwari and agriculture on rent basis. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of capital gain by disallowing the claim U/s 54F of the Act.

3. 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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

4. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has stated in the impugned order that despite four notices, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, the assessee has not received any notice nor informed by his authorized representative C.A.

Shri S.P. Gupta who was representing the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. AR has further submitted that his authorized representative appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and took adjournments, however, on the last date of hearing dated 09/11/2017, he could not attend the hearing

ITA 859/JP/2018_ 3 Surendra Singh Vs ITO and the impugned order was passed after five months without giving further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He has further contended that since the assessee is not well versed with the procedure being a rural background person, therefore, he was dependent upon the authorized representative. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Even otherwise the assessee is having good prima facie case on merits as the assessee produced the purchase agreement through which the assessee has invested in the new asset for deduction U/s 54F of the Act. He has also referred to the sale agreement through which this property in which the assessee made the investment was subsequently sold. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A).

ITA 859/JP/2018_ 4 Surendra Singh Vs ITO 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.

Order is pronounced in open court on 16th January, 2019.