M/S. NEELKANTH MANSIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1638/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) order was passed on facts pertaining to another assessee and did not address the actual grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared unsold flats as stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer added notional rent (ALV) on these unsold flats, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was erroneously passed on facts of another assessee, and if the appeal should be adjudicated on its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Shri. Gyaneshwar Kataram, A.R
For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha (SR. AR.)

Present for: Assessee by : Shri. Gyaneshwar Kataram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha (SR. AR.) Date of Hearing : 26 . 07 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31 . 08 . 2023 O R D E R

Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:

1.

The appellant, M/s. Neelkanth Mansions Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and 2 M/s. Neelkanth Mansions Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

on facts in passing an erroneous Order u/s 250 which pertains to another Assessee and has been wrongly uploaded against our name and PAN. On the perusal of the Order u/s 250 dated 14/03/2023, the order pertains to other assessee for the Asst. Year 2011-12 and not to Assessee's appeal filed for Asst. Year 2018-19 which fact is evident from the very first para on page 1 of the Order u/s 250. The Assessee states that the facts, grounds of appeal and appellants submission mentioned in the Order u/s 250 are totally different from the Assessee's case which fact is evident from the Form 35 and written submission filed by the Assessee in the matter. In the circumstances, the Assessee most humbly requests and prays Your Honour to set aside the CIT(A) Order and restore the appeal back to the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals) for adjudication.

2. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete or substantiate any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2.

Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : assessee’s return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.3,18,79,530/- was subjected to scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has shown unsold flats as stock in trade as on 31.03.2018 of the value of Rs.1,39,14,796/- but has not credited any notional income (rent) on these finished goods (unsold stock). It has also come on record that from 01.04.2017 total unsold stock worth Rs.1,21,94,796/- was lying with the assessee but the assessee has not declared any notional income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to hold the annual letting value (ALV) at the rate of 8% on the unsold inventory worth Rs.1,21,94,796/- which comes to Rs.9,75,583/-. After allowing standard deduction @ 30% on ALV the income of the assessee from the house property is assessed as Rs.6,82,908/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO accordingly framed 3 M/s. Neelkanth Mansions Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

the assessment under section 143(3) read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

3.

The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.

4.

We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.

5.

At the very outset the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by picking up the facts of some other case and drew our attention towards para 3.1 and para 9 of the impugned order.

6.

We have perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which is with regard to the issue as to assessing the fair market value of the property which has not been considered by the AO under section 55(2)(b)(ii), whereas the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal was challenging the addition made by the AO on account of computing ALV of the unsold inventory lying with the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,21,94,796/-. May be due to inadvertence this issue has not been touched while passing the impugned order in the appeal filed by the assessee. So in these circumstances we have no option except to set aside the impugned 4 M/s. Neelkanth Mansions Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and to remand the same back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2023.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →