Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
Date of hearing 15.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.06.2022 ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 20.08.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds raised by assessee are as under:
That the order u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and partly confirmed by CIT(A) is not only bad in law but also against the facts of the case.
i) That the Ld.CIT(A) is erred under the law while confirming the jurisdiction of A.O. in the case of completed assessment in the absence of any incrementing material being found either during the search or post search investigation being made by the Investigation Wing Noida as well as the assessment wing at New Delhi u/s. 153A of the Act.
2. That both the authority below are erred under the law while determining deemed rent on unsold inventory of the appellant being in the trade of real estate.
That determination of ALV on ad hoc basis both by the A.O. and the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions contained u/s. 23(1) of the Act.
4. That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amended at the time of hearing.
3. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident company. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in case of assessee under Section 132(1) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 on 03.08.2016, proceedings under Section 153A of the Act was initiated against assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act, assessee filed its return of income for impugned assessment year on 21.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.10,24,64,403. While completing the assessment under Section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, assessing officer made an addition of Rs.37,80,683 on account of rent deemed to have been received by assessee under Section 23(ii) of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, challenging the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act as well as validity of the addition made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. While deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority granted partial relief to the assessee.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee drew our attention to the grounds raised before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that, though, in ground No.2, assessee had specifically raised the issue of validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act and the addition made in absence of any incriminating material and has also made detailed submissions on these issues in course of hearing before the first appellate authority, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the grounds by treating it as general in nature without passing any reasoned order. Thus, he submitted, issue may be restored back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the grounds raised by assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee has raised ground no.2, which reads as under:
2. That the A.O. is erred under the law while abating completed assessment in the absence of any incrementing material being found either during the search or post search investigation being made by the Investigation Wing Noida as well as the assessment wing at New Delhi.
It is also observed, in respect of ground No.2, assessee has made detailed submissions before learned Commissioner (Appeals).
However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the grounds raised by assessee with the following observations:
“1. GROUND No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are dismissed as these are general in nature.”
Thus, it is patent and obvious, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to adjudicate a specific ground raised by assessee, being ground no.2, while deciding the appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudicating ground no.2. Since, the merits of the addition made under the head ‘income from house property’ is fully dependent upon the outcome of ground no.2 raised before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the ground raised on merits is also restored back to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication, if warranted, depending upon the decision to be taken in ground no.2 raised by assessee.
Consequently, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.