Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Sikar on 31 October, 2019
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR
Jh jes'k lh-'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
Before : Shri Ramesh C.Sharma, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 179/JP/2019
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat cuke The ITO
S/o Shri Budh Singh Shekhawat Vs. Ward- 3,
Polo Ground, Ramlila Maidan ke Pass, Sikar Sikar
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ATHPS 7991 N
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya and
Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Manmohan Kandpal, ACIT(OSD)-DR
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/10/2019
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 31 /10/2019
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 20-12-2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The only grievance of the assessee relates to dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving due and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
2 ITA No.179/JP/2019
Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat vs ITO, Ward- 3,Sikar 2.2 It was argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided by the ld. CIT(A) in as much as the ld. CIT(A) adjourned the case on the request of the A/R on three occasions however on 06.11.2018, when Adv. Rahman khan attended and the case was adjourn for 19.12.2018 but unfortunately because of some communication gap and confusion between him and the staff in the office, the next date could be noted in the office diary on 06.12.2018 and not on 19.12.2018. Accordingly, on 06.12.2018, when attended, the staff of the assessee was told that the above appeal was perhaps transferred to the ld. CIT(A), Alwar and new notice will come. This way, no further date could be noted by the ld.AR. Consequently, on 19.12.2018, matter could not be attended. But thereafter the appellant/AR never got any notice of final hearing nor any communication granting a final opportunity.
2.3 It was also submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee that the appellant had already filed an appeal physically in paper form on dated 17-01-2017 under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, within the permissible time limit however, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the hearing the appeal, merely on the basis of the alleged default of not filing the appeal electronically. Further the appellant even also filed the 3 ITA No.179/JP/2019 Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat vs ITO, Ward- 3,Sikar appeal electronically on dated 12-10-2018 but remaining under the impression that the condonation of delay in such cases is technical and stands waived automatically without anything to be done on the part of the appellant. The provision was brought for the first time and technically it was too difficult to comply with. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and the default of not praying for condonation on delay in such a matter was a highly technical and venial breach of law, for which, the appellant should not be made to suffer, more particularly, when the nature of the issue is such that prima face it is covered by the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur and Hon'ble ITAT Jodhpur and otherwise also is a strongly arguable case. 2.4 With respect to merit of addition, it was argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that no opportunity of cross examination was given to the assessee while making addition of Rs. 4.00 lacs u/s 69 of the Act. 2.5 I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the addition of Rs. 4.00 lacs was made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of undisclosed investment. The assessee manually filed the apealon 17-01-2017 and subsequently E-filed the appeal on 12-10-2018 which was delayed. As per the ld. CIT(A), the extension was permitted by CBDT till 15-06- 2016. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. I have 4 ITA No.179/JP/2019 Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat vs ITO, Ward- 3,Sikar gone through the reasons for the delay and found that without going into the merits of the case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, originally the appeal was filed within the time limit. In the substantial interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merit by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee . The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for Statistical purposes .
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2019.
Sd/-
¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½
(Ramesh C. Sharma)
ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 31 /10/ 2019
*Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Sajjan Singh Shekhawat , Sikar
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-3, Sikar
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy ) @ CIT(A),
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT,
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.179/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar