In Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA No. 360/Agr./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Tahir Khan, 38/2, MT vs. Income-tax Officer, Textiles, Jawahar Chowk, Jhansi. 2(3)(3), Jhansi. PAN: AJXPK8333L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2019 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is filed by assessee feeling aggrieved from order of ld. CIT(A)- dated 30.11.2017 on following grounds : 1. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in disposing off appeal ex-parte even without consideration of objections raised at stage of assessment before AO which forms part of records. 2. BECAUSE, Ld CIT(A) was highly unjustified in enhancing addition by Rs.26,00,000/- made under section 68 of Act without consideration of material brought on records of AO, facts of case and law. 3. BECAUSE authorities below were unjustified in making and confirming impugned addition of Rs.97,31,000/- as deemed income of appellant (taking value u/s 56(2)(vii) at Govt. price (For stamp ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 2 purposes) of Rs.1,12,31,000/-and reducing actual purchase consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- which action is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, illegal without any evidence brought on records to justify such huge addition and is against peculiar facts of case. 3.1 BECAUSE, while making addition authorities below have omitted to take into consideration that Government value fixed for stamp purposes is highly abnormal & excessive being worked out on rental method considering real actual value of property. 3.2 BECAUSE while making addition authorities below have not taken into consideration that property being located in basement having no proper thorough road, its situation, location, etc. and otherwise actual value of property is not more than purchase price thus addition made is wrong and illegal. 3.3. BECAUSE in any view, Ld CIT(A) while sustaining addition ought to have considered valuation report dated 05.08.2016 of Regd. Valuer, Er. R.K. Agarwal and Associates evaluating actual valuation cost at Rs. 14.96 lacs, thus addition made without proving Report of Technical expert is bad in law. 3.4 BECAUSE in any view, effect of inspector visiting premises has also not been considered, and his report of any inconvenience of valuation report. 3.5 BECAUSE in any view, action of authorities below in adopting Government fixed value for stamp purposes instead of actual purchase price and impugned high pitch addition made without any basis is grossly unjust as appellant is ready to forgone/leave/transfer property to Income Tax Department/otherwise even at 25% of Government fixed value for stamp purposes. 3.6 BECAUSE in any view, impugned addition made by disallowance of expenses of Rs.39,779/- on account of share trading expenses twice is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, wrong and illegal and against peculiar facts and law of case. 3.7 BECAUSE in any view, impugned addition made by adhoc disallowance of Rs.50,000/- out of Salary Rs.3,70,000/-, shop expenses ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 3 Rs.44,173/-, Travelling Expenses Rs.48,657/-, Mobile expenses Rs.5,845/-, Generator Expenses Rs.6,790/- and Accounting charges Rs.18,000/- that too in casual and routine manner without pin pointing any specific item is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, wrong and illegal. 3.8 BECAUSE, while making assessment authorities below made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. 4. BECAUSE, 'appellant' denies levy of interest under section 234B. 5. BECAUSE, in relation to ''grounds of appeal" as have been taken hereinbefore, 'appellant' refer and rely upon averments made in statement of fact accompanying memo of appeal. 6. BECAUSE, order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 2. At outset, ld. AR submitted that assessee is agriculturist and was not regular and punctual in appearing before lower authorities, i.e., Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and as such, assessment by Assessing Officer and appeal by ld. CIT(A) were decided exparte. He has taken us to paragraph No. 5.3 of CIT(A) order and submitted that one more opportunity be granted to assessee and assessee may be burdened with some reasonable cost. 3. Per contra, ld. DR has submitted that assessee was not vigilantly pursuing assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings and hence, CIT(A) has decided matter on merits on basis of material available on record. ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 4 4. We have heard rival contentions of parties and perused record. In paragraph No. 5.3, delay and latches on part of assessee are conspicuous and we reprimand same. However, considering object of tax adjudication, i.e., tax is required to be collected from person who is liable to pay it, and keeping that loud principle in mind, we deem it appropriate to remand matter back to file of CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost as agreed by ld. AR with office of ITAT Tax Bar Association, Agra. It is made clear that similar amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be contributed by ITAT Tax Bar Association from its corpus and would be spent on maintenance of conference hall/waiting hall of lawyers/CAs. Hence, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 11th September, 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member Dated: 11th Sept., 2019 aks Copy of order forwarded to: (1) appellant (2) respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra Bench, Agra Tahir Khan v. Income-tax Officer, 2(3)(3), Jhansi