RAJENDRA GANPAT JAGTAP,PUNE vs. ITO WARD(8)(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2587/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 January 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer of ITR, incurred high value financial transactions during FY 2017-18, including sale of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition for long-term capital gains, disallowing expenses claimed for improvement of land.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case when there was a failure to respond to notices despite multiple opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 194IA,Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 14.01.2025Pronounced: 16.01.2025

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi, for assessment year 2018-2019.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is non- filer of ITR. However, it was seen that assessee has incurred high value financial transactions during F.Y. 2017-18, the details of which are as under :

2 ITA.No.2587/PUN./2024

Information Amount (Rs) TDS Statement – Sales consideration on sale 2,95,00,000/- of immovable property (Section 194IA) TDS Statement – Commission or brokerage 1,01,698/- (Section 194H0 TDS Statement – Rent (Section TDS-194I) 2,97,71,698/- 2.1. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment by recording reasons as per the provisions of sec.147 and notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 19.04.2022. The assessee, in response to the same, filed return of income on 02.03.2024 declaring total income at Rs.17,54,860/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") vide order dated 28.03.2024 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,98,88,836/- wherein he made addition of Rs.2,81,33,976/- on account of long term capital gains towards sale of an immovable property. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has allowed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.27,200/- out of sale price of Rs.2,95,00,000/- but did not allow the expenses made towards improvement of land amounting to Rs.2,03,33,500/- treating the same as devoid of merit.

2.2. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

3 ITA.No.2587/PUN./2024

3.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, referring to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that only three opportunities were granted by the Ld. CIT(A) within a short span of 2 ½ months. Further the assessee was not well conversant with technology for which he could not see the notice nor could appoint any Counsel to represent his case. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate his case.

5.

The Learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and submitted that three opportunities were granted by the Ld. CIT(A) for making compliance. However, the assessee never bothered to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

6.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite three opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee neither made any submission nor sought any adjournment, for which, the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that given an 4 ITA.No.2587/PUN./2024 opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A).

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly.

Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →