Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA&
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 497/RJT/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Heena Mukesh Varanava Vs. The ITO Dhunvav, P.O Jambuda, Ward-2(1), Jamnagar Jamnagar [PAN No. AET PV0 164 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Appellant by : None (Written Submission) Respondent by : Shri Suhaj Mistry, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing 14.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY – JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar arising out of the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the ITO, Ward – 2(1), Jamnagar under section 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call. However, a written notes of submission has been filed on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR is present before us. We, therefore, decided to proceed in the matter on the basis of such written
- 2 - ITA No.497/RJT/2012 Heena Mukesh Varanava vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 notes of submission on behalf of the assessee. It appears from the records that an application of condonation of delay, has also been filed on behalf of the assessee with a prayer for condoning the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal before. We have perused the grounds as explained by the assessee. The assessee being an old aged lady having octogenarian mother, father already expired, failed to get proper guidance to take steps in respect of the order impugned passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in due time which according to us appears to be genuine and hence the delay is condoned.
The crux of the matter is this that the assessee filed its return of income on 09.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 60/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,28,000/-. In the course of scrutiny assessment the AO alleged that the assessee failed to substantiate the income from agricultural activity. The AO accordingly denied tax benefit available to Agricultural Income and treated the said amount of Rs. 4,28,060/- as income chargeable to tax. It further appears from the records that during the appellate proceeding the assessee duly filed the requisite papers by way of additional evidence namely the bills issued by the purchasing party to substantiate her claim for agricultural income along with written submission. However, the same was not found acceptable at the appellate stage by the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, confirmed the said addition.
As it appears from the documents particularly the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the additional evidences were duly placed before him by the assessee for adjudication of her appeal on merit on its proper perspective through the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same taking the shelter of the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. In this regard, we would like to observe that the canon principle of Natural Justice is this that none should be condemned unheard. Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule is also founded
- 3 - ITA No.497/RJT/2012 Heena Mukesh Varanava vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 upon such principle of natural justice. Thus, having regard of this particular aspect of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered such evidence submitted before him by the assessee. Since the same has not been done by the First Appellate Authority we find it fit and proper to give another opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the issue afresh in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the same upon taking into consideration the evidences on record and also the evidences which the assessee may choose to rely upon at the time of hearing of the appeal and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
In the result the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 18/12/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 18/12/2019 TANMAY, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) – 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Rajkot 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot