RAJKUMARI GULAB MANI,PUNE vs. PR. CIT (CIRCLE) 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1482/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 July 2025AY 2022-23Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish necessary details. Considering this, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing an opportunity for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide necessary details and submissions before the CIT(A), leading to the ex-parte order. The original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication when the order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to submit details, and whether the disallowance of expenditure u/s 37 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 37,Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Hearing: 17.07.2025

Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of : 22.07.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.05.2025 which in turn is arising out of order Passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 27.03.2024.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.

Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal

, following grounds are also taken on merit,

2. On the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowance of Rs 3,11,50,307/- u/s 37 of the IT Act the action is illegal as appellant has not claimed any deduction u/s 37, rather deduction claimed is a indexed cost of improvement uls 48 of IT Act and therefore entire disallowance is illegal and unwarranted.

3. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the deduction for indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 3,11,50,307/- (actual cost is 1,80,80,935/-) incurred by the appellant in the FY 2011-12, from the sale of plot transaction offered for taxation under the head capital gain

4. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in applying normal tax rate on the disallowance made, without appreciating the fact that effect of such disallowance will result into enhanced capital gain which is otherwise chargeable at a special rate of 20%. Your appellant alternatively prays for the same. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that since the impugned order is ex-parte and assessee failed to furnish necessary details and written submissions, therefore the issues raised in the instant appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Ld. DR did not oppose this request.

4.

From the facts and circumstances of the case we observe that during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not place relevant details and necessary submissions in support of the grounds raised in Form No. 35 relating to the disallowance of expenditure u/s 37 of the Act at Rs. 3,11,50,307/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment for A.Y. 2022- 2023 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →