Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment years 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing ex-parte appeal order whereas no notice dated 10-03-2023 is served on the assessee.
2 KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL THROUGH L/H ANANT KUMAR BANSAL VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the asssessee.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.8,60,146/- by disallowing claim of deduction u/s 10(38). This action of ld. Lower authorities are wrong , unlawful & without any basis.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) grossly erred in making and confirming disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act relying on the documents and evidences which are irrelevant and not related to the assessee.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in not allowing the opportunity of cross examination of the persons on whose statement s reliance has been placed by the AO and also erred in not providing copy of relevant evidences.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.26,554/- on account of alleged commission. This action of the lower authorities are also wrong , unlawful and without any basis.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 05 days in filing the appeal by the assessee (i.e. legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal) for which the legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal, filed an application dated 14- 08-2023 for condonation of delay with the prayer that the delay was because of illness and to this effect the legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal has filed a certificate of doctor Shri Sai Physiotherapy Centre dated 02-05-2023 and simultaneously an affidavit to the above effect.
3 KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL THROUGH L/H ANANT KUMAR BANSAL VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.3 We have heard the contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The crux of delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee ( i.e. legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal) is because of illness which prevented him late filing of the appeal. The Bench noted that the prayer as mentioned above by the assessee for condonation of delay of 05 days, has merit and we concur with the submissions of the assessee (i.e. legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal). Thus the delay occurred of 05 days in filing appeal by the assessee (i.e. legal heir Shri Anant Kumar Bansal) is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 2.4 Further it is also noted from the affidavit that Smt. Kamla Devi Agarwal (mother of Shri Anant Kumar Bansal) expired on 01-05-2020 for which the Shri Anant Kumar Bansal has placed on record her death certificate issued by Govt. of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, JLN Road, Jaipur vide order dated 07-05-2020. Thus Shri Anant Kumar Bansal is placed on record as legal heir 2.5 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available o record including the assessment order and the appellate order. From the appellate 4 ITA NO.365/JP/2023 KAMLA DEVI AGARWAL THROUGH L/H ANANT KUMAR BANSAL VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR order, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessees on the issue of confirming the disallowance of Rs.8,60,146/- u/s 10(38) of the Act and also confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,554/- on account of commission. It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his appeal but the main grievance of the assessee are as under:-