PARSAMBI DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (2), PATNA

The Registry has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 17 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application as well as annexed the affidavit of Shri Dilip Narayan, Director of the assessee-company. In the application, it has been pleaded that Authorized Signatory was not well and remained on bed for roughly 10 days and on account of his illness, the appeal could not be filed within time. Considering this small delay, we deem it appropriate to condone it after going through the explanation of the assessee.

In the Stay Application, the assessee has sought ad-interim stay of the outstanding demand amounting to Rs.4,65,981/-.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. While considering the Stay Application, we find that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is an ex-parte order, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Sub-section 6 of Section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would determine the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. In the present case, we find that ld. CIT(Appeals) has first narrated the number of notices issued to the assessee and thereafter observed that no new point 2

We have heard both the parties and find that the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) does not deal with all the issues. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27th October, 2015 declaring total income of Rs.22,30,990/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assesese has sold two flats for a consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, where the sale deeds were executed on 07.02.2015 and 09.02.2015. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority has determined the value of flats at Rs.50,84,000/- for charging stamp duty. Finding the difference between the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee, vis-à-vis adopted by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, the ld. Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee, as to why this difference be not added to the income of the assessee. It appears that the assessee did not submit the specific details on this point, which has not been disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer in his impugned order. However, before us, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that prior to execution of the sale deed, as noticed 3

On due consideration of the above facts, we find that both the authorities have not gone through this fact. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore this issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. The reason for setting aside the issue to the ld. Assessing Officer is that in case, proceeding instituted at the level of ld. CIT(Appeals), then she will call remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer. This will unnecessarily increase multiplicity of litigation. In view of the above discussion, the Stay Application as well as the appeal both are disposed off.

In the result, the Stay Application is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/05/2024.