Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 807/JP/2023
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 26-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal.
1. GOA-1: Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order dated 26-10-2023. The order has been passed against the principle of natural justice, in non-compliance of standard and technical procedures and without affording an opportunity of being heard.
2 RADESH CHAND SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR 2. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal s on merits. The impugned order has been passed on a sudden change of mind, without considering the submissions made by the assessee and entire proceedings.
3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the sole grounds of its mode of filing, without looking into the earlier proceedings starting from admission of the manually filed appeal, issuing several notices, allowing several adjournments and hearing of the cases including in the camp, transferring of the case to the national faceless appeals scheme in the 2020, issuing several notices under faceless scheme, allowing adjournments and option to the appellant to submit the responses against such notices. The said dismissal is unlawful, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition u/s 56(2)(vii) of the act. The addition so made is contrary to the law as well as facts and deserves to be deleted in full.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment yeaer 2014-15 on 30-03-2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,03,440/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28-08-2015. Notice u/s 142(1)of the Act was issued alongwith questionnaire on 06-01-2016. In response to these notices, Shri Dinesh Sharma, CA attended from time to time and submitted necessary details and explanation before the AO who discussed the case of the assessee. It is noted that the assessee 3 RADESH CHAND SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR is engaged in the business of trading of handicraft and textile items and the assessee is running his business in the name & style of M/s. Sapna Textile & Handicraft. It is also noted that the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of his income for the year under consideration and property transaction made during the year and thus the assessee filed the details. It is also noted that during the year the assessee had purchased an immovable property situated at Plot No. 20, Yojna Nand Vihar, Ramjipura, Surgapura, Jaipur for consideration of Rs.11.00 lacs for which Sub-Registrar had adopted the value at Rs.47,42,404/-. It may be noted that the AO vide note sheet entry dated 4-11-2016 as to the facts and provisions of provisions of Section 56 (2)(vii) brought to the notice of the ld. AR and requested to furnish his clarifications/ explanation in this regard. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted his reply which was not found tenable by the AO and thus the AO made an addition of Rs 36,42,404/- in the hands of the assesee by giving following narration. ‘’The assessee has made payment on various dates and final payment was made during the year under consideration and got registered it during the year itself. As per registered deed, the assessee has taken over the possession during the year. Further, earlier payment was also made in cash. Thus provision of Section 56(2)(vii) are clearly applicable in this case. The assessee has submitted that seller is his close relative. I have considered the reply but it noticed that the seller is not included in the person referred in definition of relative as per Explanation (e)of Section 56(2)(vii). Thus considering the facts and provision of Section 56(2)(vii) difference amount of 4 RADESH CHAND SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR purchase consideration and value adopted by the Sub-registrar of Rs.3642402/- (4742404 – 110000) is treated as income from other source and added to the total income of the assessee. As per provision of Section 56(2)(vii), the assessee was to include to difference amount of Rs.36,42,404/- in his original return but the assessee has not included the same’’. Therefore, assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, thus penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© is separately initiated.
2.2 In first appeal, the ld,. CIT(A) has treated the appeal of the assessee as infructous by holding as under:- ‘’2. It is seen that the appellant filed his appeal manually on 20.12.2016. It is to note that Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, mandates compulsory e-filing of appeals before Commissioners of Income tax (Appeals) with effect from 01.03.2016 in respect of persons who are required to furnish return of income electronically. The CBDT vide Circular No.20/2016 dated 26th May, 2016, extended the window for filing e-appeals, taxpayers who could not successfully e-file their appeal and had filed paper appeals are required to file an e-appeal in accordance with Rule 45 before the extended period i.e. 15.06.2016. Such e-appeals would also be treated as appeals filed within time. In the instant case, the appellant filed his appeal on 20.12.2016, by that time all the technical glitches were resolved. Thus, the appellant failed to file the appeal as per Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, the appeal filed on 20.12.2016 is treated as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice in non- compliance of technical procedure and without affording an opportunity of being 5 RADESH CHAND SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 6 (2), JAIPUR heard to the assessee and also without considering the submissions made by the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that he is in process of collecting relevant documents and information to prepare the submissions and argue the case. 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noticed from the ld CIT(A)’s order wherein he treated the appeal of the assessee as infructuous being filed on 20-12-2016. The submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the asssessee is deprived off to advance the submissions before the ld. CIT(A) to contest the case and thus he may be provided one more opportunity to submit his arguments/ submissions to settle the issue in question before the ld. CIT(A). The bench considered the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee to submit his submissions / arguments as to the issue raised hereinabove but awards cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld. CIT (A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.