SMT. RAMESHWARI KULDEEP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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. 1265/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke Smt. Rameshwari Kuldeep, ITO, Vs. 14, Keshav Nagar, Meeno Ki Ward 7(2), Dhani, Charan Nadi, 200 Feet Jaipur. Bypass, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BASPR 5696 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (SCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/01/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/01/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10/09/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex parte, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, which is against the principles of natural justice.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,45,000/- made by the A.O. towards purchase of plots as unexplained income. Appellate prays addition so confirmed was not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

ITA 1265/JP/2018_ 2 Rameshwari Kuldeep Vs ITO

2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is regarding the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the principles of natural justice. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the assessee and further the case of the husband of the assessee was also pending before the ld. CIT(A) which was duly attended whereas the ld. CIT(A) has decided the case of the assessee ex parte. He has further contended that there was some misunderstanding and confusion because in the appeal of the husband of the assessee which was pending before the ld. CIT(A) was duly attended and therefore, the assessee and her representative was under the impression that both the cases are taken up together as the issues in both the cases were identical and common. Hence, he has pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to person her case before the ld. CIT(A).

3. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently objected to the grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the assessment order was also passed ex parte U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) when nobody has appeared despite various opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer and notices were issued at ITA 1265/JP/2018_ 3 Rameshwari Kuldeep Vs ITO all three addresses given by the assessee. Further the ld. CIT(A) has recorded that out of six dates on which the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing, the assessee sought adjournment on first three occasions and thereafter did not appear nor filed any adjournment.

Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) after giving three more opportunities to the assessee, has decided this appeal ex parte when nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is a case of habitual default on the part of the assessee for not appearing either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A).

Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal while passing the ex parte order. The ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the issues on merits but upheld the order of the Assessing Officer for want of any explanation as well as supporting evidence on behalf of the assessee. We find that it is not a simple case of non-appearance by the assessee on some occasions but the assessee has consistently failed to appear on three occasions before the ld. CIT(A) despite the matter was already adjourned on three

ITA 1265/JP/2018_ 4 Rameshwari Kuldeep Vs ITO occasions, thus, it is clear that the assessee was very well aware about the proceedings pending before the ld. CIT(A) and the subsequent non- appearance before the ld. CIT(A) amounts to gross negligence on the part of the assessee. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the issue on merits and an identical issue was also considered in the case of husband of the assessee, therefore, in the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case before the ld. CIT(A) subject to cost of Rs. 2,500/-.

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee of hearing.