SHANTI SATYADEV MISHRA,SANTACRUZ VAKOLA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER PAREL

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre /Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17th December 2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

On merit of the appeal, the learned AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer (AO) as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order without allowing fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AO made addition on account of difference of sale consideration declared by assessee vis a vis the value determined by stump valuation authority (SVA). The assessee has purchased the property in earlier assessment year and not in the year under consideration. The assessing officer has not considered the information properly and made the addition in the year under consideration. No addition is liable to be made in the year under consideration. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of AO without independent appreciation of facts. The learned AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee, to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance, if matter is restored back to assessing officer for passing the assessment order afresh.

On the other hand, the learned senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The lower authorities have given ample opportunity to the assessee. It is the assessee who has not avail such opportunity. The assessing officer correctly made the addition on the basis of deeming provision in absence of any explanation offered by assessee despite allowing sufficient opportunity. The assessing officer has having information about the purchase of property which is registered in the financial year under consideration. The assessee does not deserve further opportunity without disclosing any reasonable and sufficient cause as to why the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceeding nor filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim.

I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I’m considering the plea of condonation of delay. The foremost plea of learned AR of the assessee is that impugned order was not received by assessee and that the assessee came to know about impugned order when recovery proceeding was initiated against the assessee. Considering the fact that such facts are not controverted by revenue, furthermore, the assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly, and rather there is chance that the plea of assessee in condoning the delay may not be accepted by appellate authority. Thus, considering the principle of law on limitation that when technical considerations and a cause of substantial justice are kept against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Hence, keeping such principle the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merits of the case.

I find that lower authorities have passed ex parte order in making addition on account of difference of sale consideration declared by the assessee vis a vis the value of asset determined by stump valuation authority. The additions were made in absence of submission by assessee. Now, before me the learned AR of the assessee undertook on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance, therefore, keeping in view principle of natural justice that the assessee was deprived from opportunity of hearing, therefore the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the assessing officer shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and not to make further delay and to furnish all the relevant information and evidence in his power and position. In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.

At the time of submission, when the learned AR of the assessee raised objection about issuance of notice by jurisdictional assessing officer, he was appraised the fact that such issue is pending before honourable Supreme Court in the appeal filed by revenue, on confronting such fact, the learned AR of the assessee agreed for not to press such ground at this stage. Thus, ground No1 of the appeal is treated as not pressed and dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.