DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 36/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma cuke The ITO Vs. 1, Bhohra Bhawan, Narakala Ki Dhani Ward 4(3) Jaipur Ninder Harmara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BNUPS 4617 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri H.M. Singhvi, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/02/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /03/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 10-11-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without looking the facts and without examining the records decided the appeal. Hence, the order is bad in law.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the Ground No. 1 which relates to non-service of notice issued u/s 148.

3. That the ld. CIT(A) went wrong in confirming the order of assessing officer. The contract receipts considered u/s 194J in the assessment order was rectified u/s 154 by taking the amount of Rs.18,56,839/-. The AO went wrong in taking contract receipts u/s 194J whereas the AO ought to have estimated the income by applying the rate of should have considered by applying the rate @ 8% 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay mentioning therein the reason that staff was in the impression that since the appeal had been filed online on 8-01-2022 and there was no need to file it manually and this negligence took place because of wrong impression. The ld.AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay because of unintentional delay by the staff. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but left the matter on the Bench to consider it as deem fit and proper in the case. 2.3 In view of the submissions of both the parties, the Bench finds it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee 3.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was deprived off to contest the case before the lower authorities for which one more opportunity may be provided to contest the case before the lower authorities.

3.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also filed the documents with regard to service of notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. 3.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that ‘’no compliance was on the part of the appellant at assessment stage. Despite several opportunities given at the appellate stage, no submission or evidence was furnished by the appellant during the appellate stage.’’ The relevant observation as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’9 Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in reopening the case of the appellant for the year under consideration under section 148 of the Act and was having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Hence, this ground i.e. ground no. 1 of appeal is hereby dismissed. ‘’11. It is seen from the records that no compliance was on the part of appellant at the assessment stage. Despite several opportunities given at the appellate stage, no submission or evidence was furnished by the appellant during the appellate stage. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and merit and material available on record, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ground No. 2 & 3 are decided in negative and against the appellant. Therefore, the additions of Rs.4,25,139/- and Rs.32,49,131/- made by assessing officer are confirmed.’’ 3.4 From the order of the ld. CIT(A), it reveals that no compliance was on the part of the appellant at the assessment stage which indicates that the assessee was deprived off to submit the arguments/ submissions / relevant papers before the AO at the time of assessment. With a view to providing natural justice, one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to contest the case by filing the necessary papers/submission/ arguments before the AO and the AO is also directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and make afresh assessment in view of his submission. The assesses is also directed not to take adjournment on frivolous ground and cooperate the Assessing Officer for completion of assessment. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /03/2023

Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28 / 03/2023 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-4(3),Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 36/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत