RAMESHWARDAS SHIVCHARANDAS AND COMPANY ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

(hereinafter referred as appellant) has preferred this appeal against the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) by passing order u/s 250 without deciding any issue on merits of the case and dismissed the appeal in summary manner for non-attendance by the appellant: Dismissing the appeal for non-attendance without passing order on merits 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal holding that the appellant has nothing to say. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the non-attendance in response to notices issued through ITBA portal / emails, ought to have issued the notice through other modes of service as per mandate of section 282 of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside. Service of notice by the Ld. AO on non-existence email ID 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment is invalid as the appellant denies service of notices. The appellant submits that the notices were issued on non-existence email Id as: abc@abc.in" as appearing on the notices issued which clearly were not served on registered email Id. The proceedings may kindly be held as invalid and bad in law.

Violation of principle of natural justice

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal violating principle of natural justice. In any case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits by passing speaking order.

Issue of notice u/s 148 on 22.04.2021

The notice issued dated 23.07.2022 is bad in law in view of non- applicability of provisions of TOLA for the impugned assessment year 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that as the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws Act 2020 (TOLA) is not applicable for the impugned assessment year 2015-16, the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.07.2022 consequent to decision of Ashish Agarwal of Hon'ble Supreme Court as contended by the Ld. AO is bad in law and void ab initio.

Information for alleged escapement of income for purchase of immovable property but assessment concluded by assessing long-term capital gain in pursuance of Joint Development Agreement

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment without appreciating the fact that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information alleging that the appellant has purchased immovable property for consideration of Rs. 5,05,15,000. While the Ld. AO has concluded the assessment assessing long term capital gain of Rs. 3,03,09,000. The assessment order is invalid and bad in law in view of the explanation 3 before amendment by Finance Act 2021 to section 148 as per the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.

Assessment of long-term capital gain ignoring the facts of the case

Conversion of asset into stock-in-trade

7. The Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs.3,03,09,000/- as long- term capital gain on sale of land in in hands of appellant firm based on development agreement entered between appellant firm and M/s.

Shivalin Infrastructure without appreciating the fact that the appellant firm had converted the said land into stock in trade in FY 2013-2014. The addition made is arbitrary and unjustified.

Erred invoking provisions of section 45(5A) inserted by Finance Act, 2017

Erred in not allowing any deduction while computing long-term capital gain 10.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in not granting any deduction and levied the tax on alleged gross consideration.

Double addition 11.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in ignoring the submission of the appellant dated 18.04.2023 that the appellant had already offered the income in the subsequent assessment year as per the terms of Joint Development Agreement. The assessment of impugned long-term capital gain is resulting in double taxation. The addition may kindly be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter any of the grounds before or at the time of the hearing.”

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the impugned order is exparte and the reason for non appearance before ld.CIT(A) was mainly on account of sending the notice of hearing to a non- existing e-mail id/wrong e-mail id. Considering the fact that the assessee made proper compliance before the AO and before us detailed submissions have been made along with the paper book running into 88 pages in support of its grounds of appeal, we considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and also in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore all the issues raised by the assessee to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall decide in accordance with law and pass a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2025.