Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F‘ BENCH
O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 27/09/2022 passed NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y.2012-13. 2. In the grounds of appeal
, assessee has raised the following:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, CIT Appeals passed the order with a reason that no submissions made, without considering the submissions made by the 2 Shri Vadilal Kunverji Gada appellant during the appellant proceedings in person, and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the appeal and without giving proper opportunity which is bad at law
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Learned AO and CIT Appeals, erred in making and confirming the additions of Rs. 1,20,000/- based on the 26AS of the assessee under the head "income from other sources" which was already offered to tax in revised computation as Rental Income thus resulting in double taxation of the same income.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Learned AO and CIT Appeals erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs. 48,49,854/- considering the new property purchase under perpetual lease to be leased property and not purchased.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Learned AO and CIT Appeals erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs. 48,49,854/- considering that the appellant holds more than one house property thus making the appellant not eligible for deduction u/s 54F, without understanding that the multiple House properties are not residential Properties, without giving opportunity to the appellant to prove that he owns only one residential property.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Learned AO and CIT Appeals erred adding LTCG of Rs. 62,94,428/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee did not transfer any property, he was only confirming party for the 50% share of the vendor and received only 25,00,000/-, thus there is no capital gain in the case of Assessee.
6. Without prejudice to the ground 5, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, CIT Appeals erred in confirming the LTCG of Rs. 62,94,428/- ignoring the valuation made by the DVO. We request the addition to be restricted to valuation arrived at by the DVO.
3 Shri Vadilal Kunverji Gada 3. At the outset, appeal of the assessee is time barred by 179 days. In the petition for condonation of delay accompanied with the affidavit of the assessee, it has been stated that the assessee neither at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT (A) nor when the order was passed, assessee had received any such notices or the order as the earlier consultant who was looking after the matter did not inform or attended the proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee had approached other Counsel who downloaded order from the ITB Portal and appeal has been filed. Therefore, it has been requested that assessee being unaware of new online system in the portal and was depended upon his consultant, therefore, there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records, it seems that due to lack of communication of the notices as well as the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee was not aware of any such order has been passed and accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned in the interest of natural justice.
Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that various rounds of physical hearing took place wherein the assessee had filed all the details and the paper book. Thereafter, assessee was not aware that appeal migrated to National Faceless Centre (NFAC) and was not aware of any such notices been sent through e-mail or ITB portal. The ld. CIT (A) has not even considered the documents which were produced, including the paper book and the submissions made during the course of physical hearing.
4 Shri Vadilal Kunverji Gada Accordingly, he submitted that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh.
The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that assessee should have been aware of the notices which now as per the Rules is only sent through online mode (email or through ITB portal) and despite several opportunities, assessee has failed to file his submissions before the ld. CIT(A).
7. It appears that during the first appeal stage, various rounds of physical hearing had taken place wherein the assessee had submitted all the details and paper book before the ld. CIT (A). Thereafter, the appeal was migrated to NFAC and thereafter assessee was unable to receive any such notices including the order of the ld. CIT (A) which was sent through online system in ITB portal. The ld. CIT (A) has passed exparte order, because the submissions and the paper book filed physically was not available with him. If the appeal was migrated to faceless appeal, then at least assessee should have been communicated at his official address and asked to update the email ID and informed about the change in system. The assessees who are dependent upon consultant and professional who also did not assist, then it leads to great hardship and injustice to the assessee as natural justice is not given. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) may pass fresh order on the grounds and the issues raised before us after due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to update its email ID so that notices can be sent from the office of the NFAC and also filed the 5 ITA No. 1849/Mum/2023 Shri Vadilal Kunverji Gada relevant details and submissions in accordance with provisions of law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th August, 2023.