Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13. The CIT(A) had decided the appeal based on facts pertaining to another person, citing paragraphs 4, 4.1 to 4.4. The assessee's counsel pointed this out and requested the matter be set aside.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an order based on incorrect facts and in a negligent manner. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by deciding an appeal based on facts not pertaining to the assessee, necessitating a remand for a fresh hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 263, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/03/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 05/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.
During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted an handwritten application which is placed on record, wherein he had mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has decided the appeal by putting facts of some other person. Ld. counsel for the Assessee drew our attention to the para 4, 4.1 to 4.4 at pags 5 & 6 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. Thereafter he had made a prayer for setting aside the matter to the file of Ld CIT(A) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR had not raised any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of Ld CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the para 4, 4.1 to 4.4 of CIT(A)’s order which read as under: 4. Ground Nos. 1:
4.1 The appellant in the written submissions submitted the following grounds of appeal, the same are reproduced for the sake of ready reference: 4.2 The brief fact of the case are that the case of appellant for A.Y.2012-13 was subjected to proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act and same was duly completed wherein sum of Rs.34,42,857/- was added to total income of the appellant as LTCG being 1/6th share in land of 2.22 hectare of sold for Rs. 2,41,00,0000/- on 25.07.2011. This order was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the PCIT, Bhopal found that the appellant's share in the land was 90.54% i.e. 2.01 hectares and accordingly, the order was set aside and order u/s 263 was passed on 07.11.2019. The case of the appellant was thereafter subjected to assessment on the issue and same was duly completed vide order dated 28:09.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 wherein sum of Rs.2,18,20,140/- (90.54% of Rs.2.41 crores) was added in the total income of the appellant. 4.3 The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings made submission before the AO and contended that the land was actually sold in F.Y.2002-03 for Rs.50,00,000/- to M/s.Global Mega Ventures Pvt. Ltd. However, registry was done in A.Y.2012-13 and due to increment in market value, the enhanced consideration of Rs. 1.91 crore was received by the appellant and his family members. but, on behalf of Shri Jagdish Singh Thakur. The appellant stated during the assessment proceedings that this amount of Rs.1.91 crores was transferred to Mr. Jagdish Singh Thakur. However, the AO did not found favour the appellant's submission during the assessment proceedings and added sum of Rs.2.18 crore in the total income of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was the owner of the property. Decision 4.4 The facts of the case has been duly considered alongwith the assessment order of the AO. The appellant during the appellate proceedings filed the Gram Panchayat Certificate to contend that the said land was under the physical possession of Mr. Jagdish Singh Thakur and appellant was the owner of the land in the records. No other evidences, details, explanations has been filed. Mere reliance on the Gram Panchyat Certificate cannot be accepted, as the appellant is one of the owner of the land and the sale deed was executed by the appellant. Infact, the Gram Panchayat Certificate is certifying that appellant is the owner of the land. Mr. Jagdish Singh Thakur did not execute the sale deed and further during the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not submit any documentary evidences to prove and establish that sum of Rs.1.91 crores which is claimed to have been paid to Mr. Jagdish Singh Thakur is not his income on account of over-riding title and further the said income has been offered by the other party i.e. Mr. Jagdish Singh Thakur. The sale of land is concrete and due to insufficiency of evidences, the appeal is dismissed and order of AO is upheld. Regarding the contention of the appellant that sale of land took place in A.Y.2003-04, it needs to be stated that the Ld.AO in the order has sufficiently countered it and further the sale deed is executed in A.Y.2012-13 and the actual market price of the land is received in A.Y.2012-13, hence, A.Y.2003-04 cannot be taken to the year of sale.
5. We have also gone through the order passed by the Ld. AO and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced hereinabove. The Ld. CIT(A), in a mechanical cryptic and in a negligent manner had passed the order in the case of the ass without ensuring that the facts and the law adjudicated by him did not pertain to the assessee. This is a real hardship to the assessee and also to the choked legal system, we strongly disapproved this practice of the Ld. CIT(A).
6. As the ld. CIT(A) have passed the order on a non existing facts, therefore we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remand back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order afresh and mention the correct facts relating to the assessee’s appeal. Needless to say the above said exercise shall be carried out by the Ld. CIT(A) after affording an opportunity of hearing to the ass and following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal of the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes.