MUKESHKUMAR BACHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(3) , AHMEDABAD

The present stay application is directed at the instance of the assessee for the stay of outstanding demand amounting to Rs.2,04,47,127/- in assessment year 2014-15.

With the assistance of the learned representatives, we have gone through the record carefully, and, it emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed his return of income on 21.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,43,900/-. It came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, but the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority has valued the property for the purpose of payment of stamp duty at Rs.3,19,59,183/-. Armed with the above information, learned Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order and with the aid of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, he assessed the total income at Rs.3,22,03,080/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,43,900/-. This has given

On perusal of the order of CIT(A), it revealed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution and there is no adjudication of issues on merits at the end of the learned First Appellate Authority. We have confronted to both the learned representatives as to why the appeal itself should not be heard alongwith this stay application, because the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is a non-speaking one. Both the learned representatives agreed for disposal of the appeal itself.

Learned CIT(A) has noticed that the appeal of the assessee was listed on five occasions and the notice intimating the date of hearing was duly issued and served upon the assessee. Inspite of giving five opportunities, the assessee did not comply with the notices and, therefore, under the compelling circumstances, learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. The stand of the assessee, on the other hand, is that jurisdiction over him has been changed from Surat to Ahmedabad, and, therefore, he requested the CIT(A) to transfer the appeal to the competent authority at Ahmedabad. The learned CIT(A) has not intimated that his appeal would not be transferred and it would be decided on merits by the learned First Appellate Authority at Surat. On account of this misconception, he could not prosecute the appeal.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that sub-clause (6) of Section 250 contemplates that learned First Appellate Authority would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on those points. The demand of more than Rs.2.14 crores has been confirmed against the assessee by merely dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. This order is not in consonance with the mandate given under Section 250(6) of the SP No. 108/Ahd/2019 & Mukeshkumar Bachubhai Patel Vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 - 3 - Act. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority and remit all the issues to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Since we have disposed of the appeal itself, therefore, the stay application filed by the assessee would become infructuous or redundant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed.