ARCHANA VIJAY PATIL (L/H OF MANIKRAO ANANDRAO DESHMUKH,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 776/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 August 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits, even in case of non-prosecution. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased agricultural land for Rs. 18,01,495/-, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 43,75,000/-. The AO added the difference of Rs. 25,73,505/- under Section 56(2)(viib). The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate authority can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The correctness of the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viib),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte, CA
For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala, DR
Hearing: 02/08/2023Pronounced: 02/08/2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Y. 2016-17) Archana Vijay Patil L/H of vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Manikrao Anandrao Sangli. Deshmukh, Kadegaon, Sangli, Sangli-415304. PAN: BAYPD 4233 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte, CA Revenue by : Shri A.K. Mahala, DR Date of hearing : 02/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 02/08/2023 O R D E R

This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 19.05.2023 for A.Y.2016-17.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from business and other sources, filed e-return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 31/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,99,150/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2(4), Sangli (for short, „AO‟) vide order dated 21/12/2018 passed u/sec.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) at a total income of Rs.31,72,655/-. While doing so, the AO made an addition of Rs.25,73,505/- u/sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect of purchase of Archana Vijay Patil agricultural land located at Kasabe Karad, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara, Survey No.316/1 for a consideration of Rs. 18,01,495/- as against the stamp value of Rs. 43,75,000/-. The difference amount between the two of Rs. 25,73,505/- was brought to tax by the AO u/sec. 56(2) of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee was filed appeal before the NFAC, who vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, without going into the merits of the issues in appeal.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

5 I had heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record.

6.

I had carefully perused the order of NFAC and find that NFAC had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the impugned addition. It is trite law that the appellate authority like NFAC, even in case of ex-parte order, should dispose of the appeal on merits. The order of the NFAC, in the instant appeal, is against the settled position of law, therefore, I remand the matter back to the file

Archana Vijay Patil of NFAC with a direction to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 02nd August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →