ANMOL LAND DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI (I.T.O. WARD 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 173/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICAL MEMBER, SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide a plausible explanation for non-appearance or non-receipt of notices but noted the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in limine without merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to pay a token cost of Rs.5500/- and ensure compliance with future notices.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.4,37,50,540/- for Assessment Year 2017-2018 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, citing a difference between purchase consideration and market value of property, invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) / Section 50C. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to the affirmation of the AO's order. The assessee subsequently appealed to the ITAT, claiming non-receipt of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, given the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices, and whether the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)/50C was correctly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 50C,Section 250,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Hearing: 18/02/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 22.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) under 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-2019.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 13.05.2023, passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.4,37,50,540/- on account of difference in value of purchase consideration and market value, as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)/50C of the Act and added the same in the income of the assessee.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition before the ld. CIT(A), however despite affording two opportunities by issuing notices on 06.06.2024 & 26.07.2024, neither made any compliance nor sought any adjournment, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and eventually affirmed the assessment order by holding that no interference is noticed in the order of the Assessing Officer.

4.

The assessee being aggrieved challenged the impugned order before this Court and submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice as mentioned by the ld. Commissioner either on email i.e. finance@ndw.group or in any physical mode and, therefore, the Hon'ble Court is requested to afford one opportunity by remanding the case to the file of the ld.

5.

On the contrary, ld. Sr. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee, by drawing our attention to the assessment order wherein the Assessee except responding to one notice dated 19.01.2023 u/s.142(1) of the Act, eventually made no compliance and/or not responded various notices sent by the AO.

6.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of the parties and the orders passed by the authorities below. The Assessee except filing an affidavit has failed to file any document to establish that it did not receive any such notices as mentioned by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. On being asked about non-appearance before the AO, the assessee except saying that notices issued by the AO have also not been received by the assessee either on the email or in physical mode, offered no plausible explanation, therefore, in our view the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency.

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, as the issue involved in this case remained to be adjudicated in its right prospective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant documents and submissions, which the Assessee failed to file before the ld. Commissioner specifically and therefore the ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine but not on merit. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and conduct of the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of token cost of Rs.5500/- in the revenue department under “other heads” within 15 days from the receipt of the order and without claiming any deduction or disallowance on the said amount. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.1 The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices in future and to file the relevant documents for proper adjudication of the issue{s} involved by the Ld. Commissioner. We hereby clarify that in case of any subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →