Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 48, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds:
1) The order passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2) The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3) The assessee was prevented on account of reasonable cause in making detailed submission before Hon'ble CIT(A) and thus dismissal of appeal to be set aside for providing reasonable
M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after considering the submission of assessee. considering the submission of assessee. 4) The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 crores is illegal, invalid crores is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 5) The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year 2015-16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014 16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014-15 is 16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014 double addition of the receipts considered and asse double addition of the receipts considered and asse double addition of the receipts considered and assessed in Asstt. Year 2015 Asstt. Year 2015-16. 6) The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as shown in the return of income at Rs.8,54,871/ shown in the return of income at Rs.8,54,871/-. 7) The learned A.O. and CIT( The learned A.O. and CIT(A) erred in holding that there is A) erred in holding that there is transfer of property during the Asst. Year 2014 transfer of property during the Asst. Year 2014-15 in order to 15 in order to levy tax on capital gain at Rs. 12.97 crores. levy tax on capital gain at Rs. 12.97 crores. 8) The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudi 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudi 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee qua the assessee without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. into consideration the submission of the assessee. into consideration the submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were issued in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He further submitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for mitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for mitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying before the Ld. CIT(A) before the Ld. CIT(A) , the order of ld CIT(A) might be set aside and might be set aside and issues in dispute may restored back to the may restored back to the file of file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, objected and submitted that the first three dates of the notices i.e. objected and submitted that the first three dates of the objected and submitted that the first three dates of the M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 w 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 were before the Covid ere before the Covid period and for those dates, period and for those dates, no reasonable cause has been no reasonable cause has been demonstrated by the assessee demonstrated by the assessee for non-compliance of the notices. compliance of the notices.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the iss We have heard rival submission of the parties on the iss We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first three perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first dates 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 dates 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020, no compliance has no compliance has been made by the assessee. T by the assessee. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that he contention of the Ld. Counsel that non-compliance was was on account of Covid period is not found to be on account of Covid period is not found to be correct, because Covid restriction were imposed from 20 , because Covid restriction were imposed from 20th , because Covid restriction were imposed from 20 March,2020 only. As As the assessee has not complied before the Ld. the assessee has not complied before the Ld. CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable and sufficient CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable cause and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , energy and time of the Income ime of the Income-tax Authority has been wasted, which could tax Authority has been wasted, which could have been used for justice delivery in other cases. In the have been used for justice delivery in other cases. have been used for justice delivery in other cases. circumstances, we feel it appropriate to circumstances, we feel it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. cost of Rs.5,000/- which the assessee shall which the assessee shall pay into Prime Minister Relief into Prime Minister Relief Fund, within 30 days of receipt of this order in 30 days of receipt of this order. Subject to the payme ubject to the payment of the cost by the assessee, t cost by the assessee, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and he order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is also consideration submission of the assessee. The assesse consideration submission of the assessee. The assesse directed to co-operate and submit necessary document in support operate and submit necessary document in support operate and submit necessary document in support
M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating upon the other grounds raised on merit. upon the other grounds raised on merit.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for n the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for n the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.