SUHAS DATTATRAY GURAV,BAVDHAN vs. ITO WARD 2(5), PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2679/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 322 days due to health issues and non-receipt of hearing notices via email. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram–Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 13/02/2025Pronounced: 21/02/2025

ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for [A] Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 29.11.2023 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

2.

The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 322 days in filing of the instant appeal. The ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons resulting into the delay in filing of this appeal. From going through the Affidavit, we notice that the notices of hearing were not issued by ld.CIT(A) on the Email-id mentioned in Form NO.35 and also there was no physical communication of the notices. Also it is stated that the assessee has been facing health issues including Paralasis Dementia. Though the ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposing the contention of the delay, we, considering the reasons mentioned in the Affidavit and also in the larger interest of justice, condone the delay of 322 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

3.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “(1) Whether on the face and in the circumstances of the case and in the LD CIT(A) Justified is rejecting the appeal on the premise that appellant had not replied to notices Issued in absence of service of any of the notices issued on the e-mail id communicated the appellant in the Form No 35 fled while prefening the appeal

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the LD CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appear on the basis of non-compliance of notices which were sued on the e-mail id communicated by the appellant for sending the notices

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting on the premise of non- compliance of notices saved, without adjudicating the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant that the income from the immovable property transaction was assessable in the hands of the family Hut and not hands of the appellant as the rights of occupation (kabjedaar) & habitation (varivaatda) had devolved on the entire Gurav family and these were indivisible and as such nether was partition of the rights possible in law nor was the share of each individual ascertainable?

(4) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITIA) was Justified in rejecting on the premise of non- compliance of notices issued, the ground that the share of the appellant was erroneously taken at 1/5 of the total consideration i.e.Rs.41.89.906/- of Rs 2.12.45.000/- despite the fact that appellant was one of the 20 signatori to the agreement of transfer and hence his share in the total consideration was only Rs 10,62,250/-

(5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Lid. CIT(A) was Justified in rejecting the appeal without considering the fact that a substantial question low was involved in the appeal regarding applicability of the provisions of Sec SOC of the Income Tax Act in so far as the appellant was not the owner of the property in question and as such ha rights of occupation and habitation were not recognised as land or building or land and building in terms of the provisions of Sec 50C of the Income Tax Act (Additional Ground Not Taken Before Assessing Officer And Faceless Appellate Authority .”

4.

At the outset, the ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the grounds of appeal and merely dismissed for non- compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard.

5. On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].

6.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The ld.CIT(A) has decided the grounds of appeal ex-parte qua assessee and has upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee did not receive notice of hearing he/ld.AR could not plead on merits of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and restore the issue on merits back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass the order in accordance with Law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required and also provide correct and active Email-id, Contact details on the Income Tax Portal, so that proper communication is possible between the Department and Assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →