ROHIT CHECHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3524/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2020AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were against ex-parte orders by the CIT(A) that sustained additions made by the AO. The assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the submissions and evidence, particularly regarding the exemption of compensation for agricultural land acquisition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(37)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 19.11.2020Pronounced: 25.11.2020

common exparte order dated 25.02.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-14 are as under:- & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15

“On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of RS. 7728143/- income from compensation received against acquisition agriculture.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte appeal order without consider submission made by appellant before CIT(A) and without grant proper reasonable opportunity to appellant against the principal of natural justice passed the appeal order without merit of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of Rs. 7728143/- income from compensation received against acquisition agriculture exempted income 10(37) of Income Tax Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of Rs. 7728143/- income from compensation received against acquisition agriculture pass the order without application of mind against the principal of natural justice with applicant.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirm an addition of Rs. 7728143/- on the facts and circumstances of the case and has not appreciated & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 the facts evidences submission made by the appellant in correct perspective.

The appellant craves leave to add/ amend any of said ground of appeal.”

3. The grounds raised by the assesseee in the assessment year 2014-15 are as under:-

“On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of RS. 3185194/- income from compensation received against acquisition agriculture.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte appeal order without consider submission made by appellant before CIT(A) and without grant proper reasonable opportunity to appellant against the principal of natural justice passed the appeal order without merit of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of Rs. 3185194/- income from compensation received against acquisition agriculture exempted income 10(37) of Income Tax Act.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirm addition of Rs. 3185194/- income from & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 compensation received against acquisition agriculture pass the order without application of mind against the principal of natural justice with applicant.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirm an addition of Rs. 3185194/- on the facts and circumstances of the case and has not appreciated the facts evidences submission made by the appellant in correct perspective.

The appellant craves leave to add/ amend any of said ground of appeal.”

4.

The facts of the case, in brief , are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in legal profession. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 14.04.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,92,191 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 11.8.2014 declared taxable income of Rs. 9,04,655/-. The AO completed the assessment for both the assessment years determining total income at Rs. 83,20,330/- for assessment year 2013-14 and at Rs. 40,89,850/- for assessment year 2014-15. The AO made the addition of Rs. 21,90,175/- on account of undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain and Rs. 55,37,968/- on account of enhanced compensation for AY 2013-14. Similarly, he made the addition of Rs. 11,04,499/- on account of undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain and Rs. 20,85,695/- being enhanced compensation for assessment year 2014-15. 4 & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15

5.

The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite issuance of statutory notices, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) for which the Ld. CIT(A) in the common exparte order passed by her sustained the additions made by the AO.

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

6.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya 118 ITR 461 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Holder vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP).

Further, while deciding the appeal on merit, the Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the various additional evidences filed before her. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate his case.

7.

Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the records. We find that due to non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. & 3525/DEL/2019 AYRS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 CIT(A), she passed the exparte order sustaining the various additions made by the AO for both the years. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and substantiate his case failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order, as per law.

We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, both the Assessee’s Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.11.2020.

More judgments on Section 10(37)

All 558 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(37) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →