Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1 [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"], Mumbai dt. 25/02/2025, pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- "
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Rs.19888 Learned CPC in raising the demand of Rs.1,98,88,680/-, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in computing the capital gain of Rs.7,53,07,062/- on capital assets, by considering the transaction as transfer liable for capital gain tax, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that no tax can be recovered without provision of law and article 265 of the Constitution of India.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the AO as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in taking the benefit of ignorance of the appellant and accordingly the same is in violation of the board circular of 14 (XL-35) of 11th April 1955. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal."
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 24/09/2018 by which the CPC computed tax payable at Rs.1,98,88,676/- on the income from capital gains amounting to Rs.7,53,07,062/-. The intimation was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). Though the ld. CIT(A) gave four notices but the appellate proceeding could not be attended and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
We are of the considered view that even if the assessee did not respond to the notices of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh on merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 19th June, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE PRESIDENT (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2025 *SC SPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/