vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-d-slSuh] mik/;{k ,o a Jh lna hi x®lkÃ]a U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy l-a@ITA No. 05/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10

Shri Mohan Lal Mutha through its Legal Heir Gyan Chand Mutha c-1, Raja Park, Jaipur	cuke Vs.	Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABWPM9882F
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@s Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv.)

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/12/2021 mn?kk"s k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 02/12/2021 vkn's k@ ORDER PER: N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 21/10/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur.

2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.

“1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. appellate authority grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

1.1 That on the facts in circumstances of the case, the Ld. appellate authority grossly erred in relying the version of the assessing officer and not deciding the appeal on merits and material on record.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower authorities grossly erred in holding that the assessee was liable for deducting tax deduction at source (TDS) on rent paid to LMJ services towards warehousing charges when the assessee was not liable for deduction of TDS on account of amount paid to LMJ services towards warehousing charges, it does not fall within the definition of rent.

2.1 That since there is no liability for TDS on the said amount, therefore the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,13,040/- is unjustified, bad in law, without material & contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act. Therefore the disallowance be directed to be deleted.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner of income tax grossly erred in holding that the liability to pay loan of Rs. 2,88,115/- ceased to exist in the name of Smt. Sunder Devi Mutha & in holding it is as income of the appellant u/s

41(1) of the I.T Act.

3.1 That son of Smt. Sunder Devi Mutha having claimed that he is the son & legal heir of Smt. Sunder Devi Mutha and amount recoverable by him therefore Ld. commissioner of income tax is unjustified in observing that no proof was submitted that Shri. Prem Chand Mutha is son of Smt. Sunder devi Mutha.

3.2 That neither Smt Sunder Devi Mutha during her life time or her legal heir Shri Prem chand Mutha has waived the said credit, confirmation having been filed by him (Prem Chand Mutha) as to credit & amount recoverable, therefore question of cessation of Liability u/s 41(1) does not arise & the impugned addition is without basis, without evidence, contrary to the material on record & the impugned addition of Rs. 2,88,115/- is unjustified, bad in law and deserved to be quashed.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.”

2. The main grievance of the assessee vide ground No. 1 relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 17.02.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 2,15,780/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 7,60,935/- by making the disallowance of Rs. 2,13,040 /- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to Act) and the addition of Rs. 2,88,115/- u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability.

4. Thereafter, the matter travelled up to the ITAT in ITA No. 301/JP/2015 wherein the case was set aside to the ld. CIT(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document