Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 354/JP/2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 354/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Madhu Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. L/H – Late Shri Jitendra Kotriwal, Ward 4(2), 2/146, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOSPK 2754 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Written submissions & Shri Ashwin Rathi (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/11/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 23/11/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner dated 17/03/2015 for the A.Y. 2008-09, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. The selection of case for scrutiny was bad in law and facts.
ITA 354/JP/2017_ 2 Madhu Kotriwal L/H Jitendra Kotriwal Vs ITO
Addition of Rs. 11,20,000/- on account of unexplained investment was bad in law and facts.
Charging of interest U/s 234A, 234B of Rs. 1,55,655/- was bad in law and facts.”
At the time of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted
that the issue raised in the appeal may be restored back to the file of
the Assessing Officer as the ld. CIT(A) has decided it ex parte.
On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that the issue may be
decided at the level of Hon’ble ITAT.
I have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has
issued various notices but after notice dated 17/2/2014 where the date
of hearing was fixed on 26/2/2014 onwards, the comments of the post
office was left. Thus, this fact suggests that the notices issued for fixing
the hearing from 26/2/2014 onwards were not served on the assessee.
The ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order. The ld AR during the
hearing has submitted that if the appeal is restored back to the file of
the ld. CIT(A) then the assessee will cooperate and appear before the
ld. CIT(A) and will also submit necessary documents/details on the
appointed date. In view of these pleadings and in the interest of justice
and equity, I restore the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be
ITA 354/JP/2017_ 3 Madhu Kotriwal L/H Jitendra Kotriwal Vs ITO
decided afresh on merits after providing reasonable and effective
opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2017.
Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23rd November, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Madhu Agarwal, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 354/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत