JIGISHU ROHIT VOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-34(1) , MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.

The assessee has challenged the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC without considering the adjournment request filed by the assessee, in disallowing an amount of Rs.24,01,411/- being cost of improvement.

The brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the impugned year dated 30.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs.1,04,42,170/-. The assessee’s case 24.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs.1,28,43,582/-, where the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) has made disallowance on cost of improvement, amounting to Rs.24,01,411/-, claimed by the assessee u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act.

The assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) on the impugned disallowance made by the A.O.

The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has only undertaken repair and renovation of the existing house and that there was no cost of acquiring new residential house property as alleged by the assessee.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AR brought our attention to the adjournment petition filed by the assessee dated 14.07.2022 before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further contended that the said adjournment petition filed before the ld. CIT(A) was not considered and was rather considered as written submission filed in response to the notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. The ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the assessee’s case before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, had nothing to controvert the same and had solely relied on the orders of the lower authorities. is evident that the assessee has filed an application for adjournment dated 14.07.2022 before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, seeking for adjournment for the purpose of collating of material from multiple source and had requested for further time to present the assessee’s case.

The ld. CIT(A) has stated in para 4 of his order that the assessee has filed written submission, which was controverted by the ld. AR that no such submission was filed as the assessee’s request for adjournment was refused.

On perusal of the available material on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC without any delay and to furnish all the documentary evidences to substantiate the claim of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide this appeal by considering the submissions of the assessee and to decide the case on merits.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.