SHRI LOKESH GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-4(2), LUCKNOW

This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow dated 27.05.2020, taking the following grounds: “(1) The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeal)-2, Lucknow erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte on 27.05.2020 during lock down period without appreciating that assessee was not aware of the notices sent through email as detail of e- filing portal are with his Advocate and Advocate Office was closed due to lock down. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for not making compliance of the notices. (2) The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeal) failed to appreciate that due to lock down, Taxation and other laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance 2020 has been promulgated on 31.03.2020. Further, as per CBDT Centre Action Plan dated 08.05.2020 it has been stated that "it is to be highlighted here that no communication with the assessee having adverse effect on him / her is to be done during this period till fresh guidelines in this regard are issued by the Board." Thus, the present ex-parte order passed Is contrary to above CBDT Circular. WITHOUT PREIUDICE TO ABOVE (3) The Ld. C.I.T. [A] erred on facts and in law in not considering additional ground submitted on 14.02.2019. "The notice u/s 143(2) of I. T. Act dated 31.08.2015 has been issued by I.T.O., Range-6(l), Lucknow, who has no jurisdiction to issue notice as the jurisdictional officer was LT.O,-4(2), Lucknow and no notice u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act has been issued in time by I.T.O.-4(2), Lucknow, therefore, the present assessment is invalid." (4) The Ld. C.I.T. [A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal solely for non appearance and not deciding following grounds of appeal as per Law. (i) "The Ld.- Income Tax Officer-4(2), Lucknow erred on facts and in law in treating the ' immoveable property sold on 27.06,2013 as short term capita! gain asset and thereby computing short term capita! gain (STCG) of Rs. 26,49,600/- from sale of property. (ii) The Ld. A. 0. erred in treating the period of holding of property from 13.06.2011 and in doing so failed to understand that the assessee has executed agreement in sale on 13.04.2010 with the seller and accordingly period of holding has to be reckoned from the date of agreement to sale. (iii) The Ld. A.0. erred on facts and in law in allowing the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 54F of!. T. Act to the tune of Rs. 21,23,327/- in respect of purchase of property vide purchase deed dated 06.08.2013. (iv) The id. A. 0. failed to understand that as per the requirement of section 54 of I.T. Act construction on the plot has to be completed within a period of three years from the date of transfer and accordingly, there was no violation of provision of section 54 of I.T. Act. (v) The present addition is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by her."

(5) The addition upheld are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by Ld. C.I.T.(A). ”

taken.

3. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I noted that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order as according to him, nobody has appeared on the date when the appeal was fixed for hearing before him. I also noticed from the order of the CIT(A) that he has summarily decided the appeal of the assessee without giving any cogent reason and his order is non speaking order. I also noted that the aforesaid notices were sent through e-mail during the lockdown period and office of the counsel was also closed during that period. Under these circumstances, I feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee as Id. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits, The provision of section 250 which deals with the procedure in appeal before the Id. CIT(A), allows a right to an assessee to be heard at the time of hearing of appeal. Even the natural justice demands that no appeal should be disposed of without being heard the party or without giving him the proper and sufficient opportunity. I, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the CIT(A) shall refix the said appeal and decide the appeal afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be present on the date of hearing fixed by Id. CIT(A) and not to seek undue adjournment and co-operate with Id. CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal.

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