Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in order dated 30.11.2011. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Central Circle -3(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 15.12.2018.
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not gone in to the evidences filed before him vide acknowledgement No.872269461221121 and hence, violated the principles of natural justice. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the Ground No.5, which reads as under:- 5. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the written submissions filed electronically vide Ack No.872269461221121 in support of the grounds raised
before him was completely overlooked and brushed aside thereby grossly violating the principles of legitimate expectation. 2.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee took us also through the Ground No.2, that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and the relevant Ground No.2 reads as under:-
2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice should be reckoned as nullity in law.
2.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated the complete details were filed by assessee before AO as well as before CIT(A) and CIT(A) in particular has not gone into the details. The ld.counsel explained the facts that the issue is sale of land. The assessee owns the land admeasuring an extent of 4 acres i.e., 1.625 hectares at Paraniputhur Village, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District which was purchased by the assessee from Shri G. Santhanam on 24.03.2006 vide Doc.
No.2963/06 registered in SRO, Kundrathur. This land is notified by Survey Nos.168, 170/1, 171, 172, 141/2B, 163/1 & 165. The assessee also purchased another plot at Survey Nos.163/2 admeasuring 97 cents at Paraniputhur Village, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District from Shri K. Sundaram on 17.03.2006 vide Doc. No.3085/06 registered in SRO, Kundrathur. The ld.counsel stated that these lands were purchased in March, 2006 and sold to Mata Amritanandamayi Math on 23.03.2016 in the land bearing survey No.141/2B, 163/1, 163/2 & 165 admeasuring 2.28 acres. The assessee has sold two properties and the AO in his assessment order noted the facts as under:-
A. Thiripurasundari F.Y. 2015-16 Sale Sale Total Sale / Purchase Cost/ Profit / loss Consideration Area Consideration sqft Cost Sqft (Rs.) Paraniputhur Village 10,09,58,250 Sqft 98,868 10,09,58,250 1021 74,55,760 75 9,35,02,490 Thirupachur Village 16,34,200 Sqft 5,114 1634200 320 15,44,583 302 89,615 Total Sales 10,25,92,450 10,25,92,450 90,00,345 9,35,92,105 The AO assessed the surplus arising out of sale of these lands as business profit as against the claim of assessee as long term capital gains. The entire premise of the AO as well as that of the CIT(A) was that the assessee has treated these assets in the balance sheet as stock-in-trade i.e., inventories – finished goods/traded goods and was never shown under the head investments.
2.1 Now, the assessee only requested that matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the submissions and evidences submitted electronically vide acknowledgement No. 872269461221121.
When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he opposed setting aside of the matter and stated that matter can be examined at the level of the Tribunal and can be decided. But, he could not controvert the fact that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and he has not considered the written submissions filed electronically vide Ack. No. 872269461221121 and the evidences filed along with the same.
After hearing rival contentions, we noted that the CIT(A)’s order is ex-parte and the CIT(A) has not considered the written submissions filed by the assessee along with evidences. The CIT(A) fixed this appeal for 3 to 4 times on various dates but assessee’s written submissions along with evidences were never considered. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh consideration of the evidences and written submissions filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) will also provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2022 at Chennai.