JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, SIKAR, SIKAR

ITA 82/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2025AY 2010-111 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of written arguments and absence at hearings, stating the assessee was not pursuing the case on merits. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's grievance was that the CIT(A) had not taken into consideration the remand report along with the valuation report. The Tribunal felt that this report might not have been forwarded to the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, the Bench decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the paper books and provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits, and the assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments. The decision to restore the matter was stated to have no reflection on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Jagdish Prasad Bhumu, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the CIT(A) dated 28-11-2024 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee's grounds of appeal included allegations of denial of natural justice, failure to consider a remand report, and errors in not rectifying the assessment order in compliance with a Departmental Valuation Officer's report. The primary dispute involved an addition of Rs. 34,64,766/- on account of long-term capital gain, with the assessee arguing that a portion of the land was not urban agricultural land and was situated beyond 8 K.M. from the municipal limits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in passing an appeal order without allowing a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee, thereby violating the principle of natural justice, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and in law? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the remand report submitted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Sikar, dated 26-02-2019 before the office of CIT(A) in the manual regime? 3. Whether the lower authorities grossly erred in not making suo motu rectification in the assessment order in compliance with the Departmental Valuation Officer's report dated 12-02-2019? 4. Whether the lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 34,64,766/- on account of long-term capital gain? 5. Whether the lower authorities grossly erred in levying tax on the alleged transaction, considering that 43% of the land is not urban agricultural land and is situated beyond 8 K.M. from the limit of the municipal area? Assessee's Contentions: The learned AR argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and the Departmental Valuation Officer's report, and that the lower authorities erred in not rectifying the assessment order. The assessee relied on a paper book containing the remand report, valuation report, sale deed, and conversion letter. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Hearing: 21/05/2025Pronounced: 28/05/2025

ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-11-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing appeal order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee, which is against to the principle of natural justice.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering remand report JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR submitted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Sikar dated 26-02-2019 before office of CIT(A) in the manual regime.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in not making Suo moto rectification in assessment order in compliance of Departmental Valuation officer report dated 12-02-2019.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs 34,64,766/- on account of long term capital gain.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in levying tax on the alleged transaction as 43% of land is not urban agricultural land and situated beyond 8 K.M. from the limit of municipal area.

2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee with following observations. ‘’3.7 From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that no written submissions have been made at appellate level. Therefore, it is stated that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending and therefore the appeal is decided on the basis of documents available on record. There may be various reasons with the appellant to remain absent at the time of hearing. One of the reasons may also be a desire or absence of need to prosecute the appeal or inability to assist in the appellate proceeding in a proper manner or to take benefit of vagaries of law. However, the exact reasons for non- attendance/non-submission are only known to the appellant. The CIT (Appeal) can under such circumstances, invoke the inherent powers vested therein.

JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR These powers are embedded with certain inherent obligations also. One of such obligations is that the appellant must not be deprived of being heard. Therefore, the easiest way for appellant in this case was to furnish the written submission in support of grounds of appeal. But instead, the appellant in this case not only chose to ignore the date of hearing but even did not furnish any submissions. 3.8 Considering the above discussion and facts, it is clear that the appellant assessee is not pursuing its case on merits. In pursuance of its appeal the appellant assessee did not file any documents in support of its claim that why addition of Rs. 34,64,766/- is not sustainable. Based on these observations the appeal filed by the appellant assessee is dismissed. 3.9 In result the appeal is dismissed.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte and thus he did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not considered the remand report submitted by the Joint Commissioner Range, Sikar dated 26-02-2019 to the Pr. CIT (A)-4, Jaipur. The ld.AR further submitted that the lower authorities erred in not making suo motu rectification in assessment order in compliance of Departmental Valuation Officer report dated 12-02-2019.

JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR The ld. AR of the assesseee to support his case filed the following paper book which were made available before the ld. CIT(A) and AO. S.N. Particulars Page Part of records No.

Copy of remand report alongwith 1-11 CIT(A) &AO copy of Valuation report received from Asstt.Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Jaipur 2. Copy of registered sale deed 12-19 CIT(A) &AO 3. Copy of conversion letter for 20-22 CIT(A) &AO conversion of 7500 sq Mtr. Land Area 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein he observed that the assessee did not pursue his case on merit and did not file any document in support of its claim and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in spite of providing sufficient opportunities. The grievance of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has not taken into consideration the remand report alongwith valuation report received from Asstt.Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department as the same was sent by the JCIT, Range-Sikar, to Pr. CIT (A)-4, Jaipur. It appears that the same might have not been forwarded by the Department before the ld. JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi during the course of appellate proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Bench feels to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh by taking into consideration the Paper books (supra) and also by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A), therefore he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →