MALHAR NARENDRA PUNDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appellant, Mr. Malhar Narendra Punde (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi 'erred in making addition of Rs.38.71,300/ on account of Purchase of Immovable Property without considering submission made by the appellant. 2 Mr. Malhar Narendra Punde

The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.38,71,300/- made in respect of Purchase of Immovable Property be deleted.

The appellant Prays to accept the additional evidence produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in levying interest under Section 234 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of Income tax Act, 1961. 6. Further detailed submission will be given at the time of hearing. 7. Appellants Company craves leaves to add, alter or modify either of the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.”

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.

Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the assessee is an individual currently pursuing his studies. The assessee brought the fact before the Ld. CIT(A) that he has not been provided with opportunity of being heard by the AO. It is also brought on record by the assessee by way of filing additional evidence that the assessee has purchased the immovable property of Rs.38,71,300/- qua which payment of sale consideration was made by his father Mr. Narendra Punde who is non resident Indian from financial year 2011 to 31.12.2016. He has also brought on record certificate of service of his father Mr. Narendra Punde and copy of bank statement as proof of payment of sale consideration by his father. The assessee has also brought on record information regarding source of funds along with evidence.

But strangely enough the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the application filed by the assessee for leading additional evidence under rule 46A on the ground that since sufficient opportunities have been given to the assessee by the AO for filing relevant document/details/evidences but the same has not been filed and 4 Mr. Malhar Narendra Punde hence proceeded to dismiss the appeal which is a blatant miscarriage of justice.

When undisputedly the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and has brought on record all the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) who has refused to examine the same merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises that sufficient opportunities have already been given to the assessee. In these circumstances the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence set aside. All the evidences/documents brought on record by the assessee by way of additional evidence which is necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand is allowed and Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee by considering all the evidences brought on record by the assessee.

Consequently the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.