Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Assessee by ShriAshwin Parekh,C.A Revenue by Shri O.P. Vaishnav, –CIT-DR Date of hearing 26.07.2021 Date of pronouncement 26.07.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, [CIT(A)] Surat dated 28.11.2017 for assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,05,754/- for Indexed Cost of cost of improvement of Rs.75,00,000/- incurred in earlier year without appropriate verification. The deduction of Rs.1,21,05,754/- should be allowed.
2. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,58,750/- for transfer expenses supported by evidences. The addition of Rs.3,58,750/- should therefore, be deleted. 3.The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.2,27,51,020/- u./s 50C of the Act in the Sh. Arvindbhai L. Lakhankia absence of any difference between the value shown in the Registered Sale Deed and value determined by state Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. The addition of Rs.2,27,51,020/- should therefore, be deleted. 4.The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.2,27,51,020/- without referring the issue to Valuation Officer u/s. 50C(2) of the Act. The addition should be deleted.”
Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the aforesaid matter was completed under section 143(3) on 23.03.2016.The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made the addition of undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG for short), deem income under section 50C and disallowance of other expenses. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer in ex parte order. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the hearing before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee sought adjournment through his Ld. Representative vide application dated 07.11.2017.The assessee sought adjournment for twenty days only, as his Representative was busy in completing tax audit formalities. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the adjournment was declined to the assessee and 2 Sh. Arvindbhai L. Lakhankia order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) after twenty one days. The Ld. AR for assessee submits that the assessee not defaulted in making proper compliances, rather sought adjournment for valid reasons, which was declined and appeal of assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for want of requisite explanation, details of evidence. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and if likely to succeed, if the assessee is given one more opportunity of hearing on merit. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertake on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) of the Revenue submits that Hon'ble Bench may take appropriate call and pass the order in accordance with law. However, the assessee must remain vigilant in attending the hearing and not to seek favolus adjournment. 5. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) fixed the date of hearing on 07.11.2017. On 07.11.2017, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for adjournment. However, the adjournment was declined. The Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee filed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence and requisite explanation despite repeated opportunities and dismissed the appeal.