Case Law Details
Shri Manoj Dewan Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. A/R of the assessees was contesting election of Central Council of ICAI scheduled for 8th & 9th December, 2018, then one more opportunity ought to have been granted by the ld. CIT (A). Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessees subject to cost of Rs. 2500/- each and set aside the matters to the record of the ld. CIT (A) for deciding the same afresh after hearing the assessees. The assessees are also directed not to take any further adjournment before the ld. CIT (A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
These two related appeals by the assessees are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT (A)-4, Jaipur both dated 27.11.2018 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15 respectively. The assessees have raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised in appeal no. 30/JP/2019 are reproduced as under :-
1. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing ex party appeal order whereas his office accepted adjournment application of assessee and ensured that new date of hearing will be intimated through new notice of
2. On the facts & circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in rejecting appeal of assessee without considering the facts of the case and without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also the assessment made u/s 143(3) read with section 147 is without jurisdiction & unlawful.
5. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,19,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash.
6. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in making addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 64,819/-.
7. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in making addition u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 8,537/-.
8. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 90,797/- on account of Interest Income on IT refund.
2. At the time of hearing, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed both the appeals ex parte by rejecting the applications for adjournment filed by the ld. A/R of the assessees. He has referred to the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the ld. A/R filed applications for adjournment in advance for the hearing on 20th November, 2018 on the ground that he was busy in election of Central Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India scheduled to be held on 8th & 9th December, 2018. Therefore, the ld. A/R has contended that a reasonable cause was explained for seeking adjournment for the hearing on 20th November, 2018. However, the ld. CIT (A) instead of considering the request for adjournment, has dismissed the appeals ex parte. He has pleaded that the matters may be set aside to the ld. CIT (A) for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessees.
3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has vehemently opposed to the request for setting aside the matters to the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the ld. CIT (A) granted as many as 8 opportunities to the assessee but the assessee kept on seeking adjournments and did not argue the appeal. He has relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A).
4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on The ld. CIT (A) has passed identical orders in both the appeals and dismissed the appeals of the assessees ex parte. We find that though the ld. CIT (A) fixed the hearing of the appeals on 8 occasions, out of which on 7 occasions the adjournment applications were filed by the ld. A/R of the assessees. The hearings of both the appeals were fixed simultaneously on the same date and, therefore, identical adjournment applications were filed. The ld. CIT (A) granted adjournments on 6 occasions but refused to grant the adjournment on last occasion i.e. 20.11.2018. We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. A/R of the assessees was contesting election of Central Council of ICAI scheduled for 8th & 9th December, 2018, then one more opportunity ought to have been granted by the ld. CIT (A). Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessees subject to cost of Rs. 2500/- each and set aside the matters to the record of the ld. CIT (A) for deciding the same afresh after hearing the assessees. The assessees are also directed not to take any further adjournment before the ld. CIT (A).
5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
