Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 319 days, pleading assistance from an accountant who was unaware of the appellate orders being uploaded. The grounds of appeal contested additions made by the AO on account of capital gains, stamp duty valuation under section 56(2)(vii)(c), section 50C, and interest under section 234A, B & C.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objections from the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not adequately complied with statutory notices and the AO had not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. Whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of being heard by the AO and CIT(A).
Sections Cited
56(2)(vii)(c), 50C, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2016-17 Mrs.Rajkanwar Kataria, Income Tax Officer, Tower No.4, Flat No.G-03, No.4,5,6 Non-Corporate Ward-10(5), North Town Estate, Binny Mills, Chennai. Stephenson Road, Jamlaia, Chennai-600 012. [PAN: AALPK5671N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri M.Murugaboopathy, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1059728535(1) dated 15.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-17 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 319 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is assisted by her accountant in the tax matters who in turn was not aware that the appellate orders were uploaded on the Income Tax Portal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 The various issues contested through the present appeal are regarding the action of the Ld.AO in making an addition on account of modified determination of capital gains, adoption of stamp duty valuation invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c ), addition u/s 50C and charging of income u/s 234A,B & C etc. At the outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to para 4 of appellate order indicating that opportunities were provided to the assessee which were not complied. The Ld. Counsel submitted that even the Ld.AO has not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making the impugned addition and that the information was obtained and used without assessee’s knowledge. It was requested that one last opportunity be provided to present its case Page - 2 - of 4 before the Lower Authorities. The Ld.AR gave personal assurance that full compliance will be made to the statutory notices. 4.0 The Ld.DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the fact that the assessee has not adequately complied with the statutory notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). It is also noted that the Ld.AO has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered view that, considering overall facts of the case as also in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity before the Lower Authorities. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld. AO is directed to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be Page - 3 - of 4 adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all or any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the re-adjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0. In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th , April -2025 at Chennai.