Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI N.K.SAINI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
PER N. K. SAINI, V.P.
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.11.2018 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and bad in facts.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding validity of order passed by ld. AO, particularly when the ld. AO had not compliance the provision of the law.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,91,601/- in respect of unexplained investment in land.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding various observation made by the ld. AO in the assessment order without confronting the material/investigation to appellant and also providing cross examination of the parties on whose statements reliance has been placed in impugned order of assessment and therefore finding so made is in disregard of principles of natural justice is vitiated.
That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.
The petitioner prays for justice & relief.
Facts of the case in brief that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short' the Act'] was carried out at the residence of Shri Mohan Lal Suthar & Shri Ram Kishore Jangid
(husband of the assessee) on 15 & 16.12.2009 and certain documents
belonging to the assessee were found on the basis of which notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee
filed the return of income on 25.11.2011 declaring ‘nil’ income. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed
that the assessee had purchased some properties as per following
details:-
S. No. Details of asset Name of Date of Sale Share of Smt. seller Purchase Consideration Anita (Rs.) +Stamp Duty (Rs.) 1. 29.08.2005 2,00,000+11,100= l/3rd Rs. 70,367/- Sh. Khasra No. 913, Pokaran 2,11,100/- Kishanlal 14 Beegha 07 Biswa and Others
29.08.2005 1,00,000+ 10,200 = Sh. Khasra Khasra No. 913, 1/3 rd Rs. 36,734 Kishanlal Pokaran 14 Beegha 07 1,10,200/- and Others Biswa and No. 914, Pokaran 9 Beegha 9 Biswa
3 Sh. Daulal Khasra No. 1806/915 7 08.12.2005 80,000+4,500= 100% 84,500/- Rs. 84,500 Biswa 5 Biswa
Total` 1,91,601/-
According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not furnished any details, balance sheet etc. He, therefore, made the addition of Rs.
1,91,601/- in the hands of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)
who decided the appeal ex-parte and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. She also mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order
that various notices were issued to be assessee for hearing of the case,
in response to which the assessee neither sought adjournment or did not respond. Now the assessee is in appeal.
The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing
Officer without taking the explanation from the assessee relating to the investments, if any, made impugned additions. It was further submitted
that the Ld. CIT(A) without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. SR supported the orders of the authorities below
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present
case, it is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. She mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order that notice were issued for hearing on various dates to the assessee but there
was no response. However, nothing is brought on record to substantiate
that notices issued to the assessee were served upon her. It is also noticed that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,91,601/-
by observing that the assessee had not furnished any source of investment for the said amount. However, it is not clear from the assessment order dated 29.12.2011 as to whether the Assessing Officer
asked any explanation relating to the investment if any, made by the assessee. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer
to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 02.05.2019) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) Vice President Dated :02. 05.2019 “आर.के.”
आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील!यआ"धकरण, च$डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 6. गाड'फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायकपंजीकार/