Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Jeeevan Ram C/O Sh. Ramnath , Jaipur vs Assessee on 20 July, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 197/JP/2015
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08.
Shri Jeevan Ram S/o Shri Ramnath cuke The Income Tax Officer,
Village : Balmukundpura, Vs. Ward 7(2),
Tehsil : Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AIGPJ 1180 L
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13.07.2016.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 20/07/2016.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHART, JM.
The appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)- III, Jaipur dated 24.12.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also erred in holding that the appellant was non compliant and appellant was not seriously interested to pursue the appeal.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in withholding disallowance of deduction u/s 54F amounting Rs. 22,81,815/- for investment in house constructed by the appellant.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in withholding disallowance of deduction u/s 54B for purchases of Agricultural land amounting Rs. 70,32,105/-.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 55,433/- on account of interest credited in bank accounts.2 ITA No. 197/JP/2015
Shri Jeevan Ram vs. ITO
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in withholding the agricultural income at Rs. 1,25,370/-.
2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, he requested that the assessee be given opportunity to represent his case before the first appellate authority.
2.1. On the contrary, ld. Senior D/R opposed the submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and pointed out that the ld. CIT (A) has given various opportunities to the assessee and on various occasions no one attended the hearing before ld. CIT (A). He submitted that under the facts of the present case, the assessee deserves no indulgence by this Tribunal. The ld. D/R has also brought appeal folder and has taken us through the order sheets wherefrom it transpires that various opportunities were given to the assessee.
2.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is that sufficient opportunities were not given and the appeal was decided at the back of the assessee despite an adjournment request was made on 22.12.2014 as the assessee has changed the Authorized Representative. It is contended that the ld. CIT (A) ought to have given opportunity to the assessee in the interest of principles of natural justice. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that on the last date of hearing before the ld. CIT (A) i.e. 22.12.2014 the assessee has sought adjournment on the ground that the Authorized Representative was changed and the new A/R required some time for preparation of the case. It was further submitted that the assessee had applied for copies of note 3 ITA No. 197/JP/2015 Shri Jeevan Ram vs. ITO sheets of the assessment proceedings which was not supplied and required some time. The assessee is an illiterate person as is evident from the fact that he had put thumb impression on the memorandum of appeal. Keeping this fact in view and in the interest of principles of natural justice, we deem it proper to restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT (A) for deciding afresh, subject to payment of cost to the revenue for Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT (A) for decision afresh on all the grounds as taken in Form No. 36, subject to payment of cost as mentioned above. The assessee is directed to appear before ld. CIT (A) suo moto after obtaining a copy of this order from the Registry of the Tribunal, within two weeks. The ld. CIT (A) upon receipt of the order and proof of payment of cost as per Rules would adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit. The assessee is hereby directed not to seek adjournment and co-operate with the department.
3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/07/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ( dqy Hkkjr)
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 20/07/2016.
Das/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Shri Jeevan Ram, Jaipur.
2. The Respondent- The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur.
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File (ITA No. 197/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar 4 ITA No. 197/JP/2015 Shri Jeevan Ram vs. ITO