Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in real estate development, filed his return for AY 2015-16. The case was selected for limited scrutiny relating to sale of land/building and other mismatches. The Assessing Officer estimated the value of two flats sold, treating the difference as business income. The assessee appealed this order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case, solely on grounds of non-compliance by the assessee. To ensure justice and fair play, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present his case.
Sections Cited
142(1), 143(2), 43CA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order
: May 21, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, Addl/JCIT(A), Bhopal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 26.09.2015 for the assessment year 2015- 16 by declaring total income of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS relating to the issue of income/capital gains on sale of land or building, sale of property mismatch, sundry creditors and sales turnover mismatch. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued to the assessee and the ld. AR of the assessee duly complied to the notices. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee assessee engaged in the business of real estate development and having income from house property and bank interest. During the relevant time, the assessee had sold two number of flats against which agreement for sale for one of the flats was executed on 29.07.2011 and another was executed on 06.08.2014. The flat for which the agreement was made on 2011, the Assessing Officer estimated the value of the said flat at Rs.3643350 and the other at Rs.4300000/- as was ascertained by stamp registering authority. The entire difference amount has been treated as income from business u/s 43CA of the Act. The assessee before the Assessing Officer had produced a copy of registered deed of sale executed on April 2011 at same locality and the value was ascertained at the same value as declared in the deed of conveyance, but the same was not at all considered by the Assessing Officer and made the addition in the hands of the assessee assessing the total income of Rs.34,45,098/-.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance of the assessee during the appellate proceedings on consecutives dates as fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer solely on the ground of non-compliance.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order and the assessee did not get proper opportunity to represent his case. The ld. AR prayed that another opportunity may be given to the assessee in order to substantiate the claim of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently opposed to the above prayer of the ld. AR stating that although sufficient opportunities have 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee been provided on various dates but the assessee did not able to turn up before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee without having any other alternative.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the present case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte without going into merits of the case by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. We note that the assessee could not represent his case properly and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the technical ground of non-compliance rather than deliberating on the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interests of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remand the whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the matter on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the notices which will be issued by the ld. CIT(A) as and when asked for without any fail and in case, the assessee fails to appear in remand proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) may pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.