Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAOvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1230/JP/2019
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1230/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Late Sh. Padam Chand Jain The ITO, Vs. L/H Rajiv Chhabra, Ward-5(3), 10/549, Kaberi Path, Mansarover, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABMPJ 3932 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.08.2019 of ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. That the Learned CIT(A) went wrong in dismissing the appeal without considering the facts mentioned in Form No. 35 and the grounds of appeal from No.1 to 5.
2. That as per sec. 251 the CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity to the appellant to discuss the grounds of appeal.
3. That the notice U/s 148 was issued in the name of the deceased. Hence, the proceedings initiated are bad in law and the assessment u/s 147 is also bad in law.
4. That the indexed cost of acquisition u/s 48 is also worked on the arbitrary amount of cost of acquisition. 5. That while working out the tax on capital gain the benefit of exemption limit of Rs. 110000/- was not given. 6. That no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and hence the assessment made u/s 144 is bad in law. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
Hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. However, the assessee has filed a letter dated 10.10.2020 whereby it is pleaded that the written submission already filed by the assessee may be considered for deciding the case. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is proposed to be heard and decided on the basis of the written submission.
The ld. DR submitted that it is a case of non filing of return of income by the assessee and the Assessing Officer has received information regarding the sale of immovable property by the assessee. The AO accordingly issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2015. The assessment was completed U/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act as the assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice U/s 148 of the Act.
The AO has assessed the income of the assessee being long term capital gain of Rs. 5,99,646/- after allowing the index cost of acquisition. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has acted in accordance with law and the long term capital gain was computed as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act after allowing the index cost of acquisition. The ld. DR has further contended that the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) however none has appeared or attended the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and subsequently the appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte.
After going through the written submission of the assessee as well as the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) it is noted that the assessee in the statement of fact has explained certain details as well as raised the objection against the validity of the notice issued U/s 148 of the Act due to the reason that the notice was issued in the name of deceased assessee who expired on 01.02.2010 whereas the notice issued U/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2015. Further, the assessee has also challenged the index cost of acquisition as worked out by the Assessing Officer without considering the actual cost of acquisition and not allowing the minimum exempt limit of Rs. 1,10,000/- while issued a demand notice. All these submissions are part of the statement of fact as well as grounds of appeal attached in Form no. 35 being the memo of appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without even considering the bare facts as stated in the statement of fact and without verifying the correctness of the facts stated in Form No.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh by passing a speaking order after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2020.