VINAY PAL,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1790/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 February 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording due opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a plot of land and utilized the sale proceeds to purchase a residential house, believing the transaction was exempt under Section 54. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on this sale. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 249(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 24.02.2020Pronounced: 26.02.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/09/2018, passed by CIT(A)-1, Noida, Uttar Pradesh for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal

are as under:-

1. Because, Id. CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal in ex-party without providing any proper opportunity of being heard in as much only adjournment rejected behind the back of assessee and ex-party order sent to assessee after more than 3 months.

2.

Because, Id. CIT (Appeals) is totally wrong in holding that, assessee has not paid appeal fee in terms of s.249(l)(a) and hence is same is not maintainable and not admitted, while appeal fee is duly paid on 25.01.2017 and which is still on the site of deptt., hence order is inherently illegal.

3. Because, Id. CIT(A) further erred in commenting adversely on the grounds and rejecting the same unilaterally without any opportunity/enquiry etc. even after not admitting the appeal.

4. Therefore, it is very respectfully prayed that this court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order under question with the direction deemed fit to CIT(A) to hear matter on merits.”

3.

The assessee sold a plot of land situated at Noida during the Assessment Year 2009-10 for Rs. 47,00,000/-. The sale proceeds was utilized in purchasing a residential house by the assessee. The assessee filed income tax return for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 25/3/2010, but did not disclose the sale of property assuming that since the transaction is exempt from tax u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.35,22,888/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given the appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to represent his case and the documents/evidence which was submitted before the Assessing Officer was not at all taken into account by Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) simply observed that if the assessee does not claim for exemption u/s 54, the Assessing Officer /Revenue is not bound to grant the same.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not given any categorically finding on merit of the case and also did not give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of hearing. Hence, we are remanding back the entire issue to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th FEBRUARY, 2020.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →