INCOME TAX OFFCIER, KALYAN vs. VINOD KISHAN NENWANI, ULHASNAGAR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILITO – 2(2), 2nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan West, Thane Maharashtra - 421301
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 20/02/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year
2018-19. 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application seeking adjournment was filed.
2
From the perusal of the record, we find that the notice sent to the assessee through registered post was also returned unserved. Therefore, we proceed to decide the present appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”).
In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded his juri iction by adjudicating the contention of the appellant on the issue of agricultural income which was never a part of the assessment order as the assessee had raised the issues for the first time during the appellate proceedings, thereby bringing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) under the ambit of perversity.
On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to discuss the issue of additional evidences filed during the course of appellate proceedings, by failing to appreciate that the issues were raised for the first time by the assessee and were not part of the assessment order, thereby exceeding his juri iction.
On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the provisions of Rule 46A by not calling for a remand report, thereby vitiating the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.”
During the hearing, the learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by adjudicating the contention which was never a part of the assessment order nor was any opportunity granted to the Revenue by calling for a remand report.
We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration filed his return of income on 27.07.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.7,44,150/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the basis that 3
the value of the property purchased by the assessee is less than the value as per the stamp authority. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. As per the information submitted by the Sub-