KALYAN MAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

3 ITA No. 766/JPR/2024 Kalyan Mal Saini vs. ACIT 7. It may be mentioned here that when the assessment order was challenged before Learned CIT(A), as per observations made in the impugned order by Learned CIT(A), despite repeated notices u/s 250 of the Act, the appellant did not put forth any written submission or document or information during its pendency. Consequently, the assessment order came to be upheld. 8. In the course of arguments before this Appellate Tribunal, it has transpired that the assessment order suffers from mistake as regards the date of registration of sale deeds of two agricultural lands by the assessee. In para no. 3 of the assessment order, the date of registration of the sale deed has been typed as 01.12.2017, but, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that this is not the correct date. He has further submitted that even the date regarding purchase of agricultural lands by the assessee has not been correctly recorded therein. At the same time, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that when the matter came up before Learned CIT(A), the assessee could not appear or produce certain documents, he being an illiterate farmer , and further that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after taking into consideration the entire material available with the assessee.

4 ITA No. 766/JPR/2024 Kalyan Mal Saini vs. ACIT In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the assessee has also presented an application pleading non production of documents, regarding purchase of the properties, before the Assessing Officer. 9. Learned DR for the department does not dispute that there appears to be a mistake in the assessment order regarding the date of transaction of sale of two properties by the assessee. 10. For effective adjudication of the matter in framing of assessment, the Assessing Officer was required to take into consideration all the relevant material and correct facts. As noticed above, it is not in dispute that in the assessment order, there is mistake regarding the date of the registration of sale deeds as regards sale of two agricultural lands by the assessee. The assessee is an illiterate farmer, as claimed before us. We find that for conducting of proceedings in accordance with law, reasonable opportunity, of being heard deserves to be granted to the assessee, so that the Assessing Officer is able to consider the relevant documents for adjudication of points for determination, including the relevant dates. Therefore, prayer on behalf of the applicant for production of requisite documents before the Assessing Officer deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly.

5 ITA No. 766/JPR/2024 Kalyan Mal Saini vs. ACIT 11. It is true that the assessee did not participate in proceedings before Learned CIT(A) despite service of notices. As is available from the impugned order, four notices were issued. These were communicated at the email address of the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessee was required to respond to the notices. In case of any genuine difficulty, he could seek adjournment(s). There was neither any appearance nor response from the side of the assessee to the notices. But, in the course of arguments, it has not been submitted by Learned AR for the assessee that notices were brought to the notice of the assessee by his authorized representative or that even then the assessee did not contact them. Therefore, on this aspect, we do not deem it a fit case to burden the assessee-appellant with costs. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) Section 250 of the Act, Learned CIT(A) is required to state in the order, points for determination, and also record reasons leading to decision of the appeal. However, neither points for determination were stated nor the same were discussed, before dismissing the appeal. In the given situation, when we find that production of documents, which the assessee did not produce before Learned CIT(A) as well, is

6 ITA No. 766/JPR/2024 Kalyan Mal Saini vs. ACIT necessary for verification and consideration by the Assessing Officer , and the matter needs to be remanded to the Assessing Officer. Result 12. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this appeal is disposed off for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing, reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to issue directions to the assessee to produce all the relevant material/documents before him. On behalf of the assessee, it is assured by Ld. AR that the assessee shall comply with all the directions issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18/07/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Shri Kalyan Mal Saini, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Jaipur.

7 ITA No. 766/JPR/2024 Kalyan Mal Saini vs. ACIT 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 766/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत