M/S. ANANDTARA PROPERTIES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.04.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The learned A.O. and learned CIT(A)-7, Pune erred in law and on facts in making addition amounting to Rs.11,76,606/- u/s 43CA of ITA, 1961 and thereby assessing total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.93,85,220/- as against returned income of Rs.82,08,610/-. 2) The learned IT authorities erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 43CA of ITA, 1961 and making addition without substantiating fact that, appellant is in receipt of consideration higher than agreement value. The learned A.O. ought to have appreciated that, the details of purchasers along with their PAN & address was available with learned A.O. 3) The learned A.O. and learned CIT(A)-7, Pune erred in law and on facts in making addition amounting to Rs.11,76,606/- on account of difference between Stamp duty & Agreement Value u/s 43CA of ITA, 1961 without appreciating fact that, the difference in stamp duty value & actual consideration does not exceed 10% to 20% of stamp duty value & the said difference was on account of justifiable reasons. 4) Without prejudice to Ground No.1 to 3, the learned IT authorities erred in law and on facts in not referring the matter to DVO before making addition u/s 43CA of ITA, 1961. 5) Appellant craves leave to add / modify / amend / delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.”

Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Now, the law is settled to the extent that the ld. CIT(A) is bound to dispose of the appeal on merit even in the case of ex-parte orders. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) should go into to the merits of the issue in appeal and dispose the appeal. Since the ld. CIT(A) had not disposed of the matter on merits, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits based on the material available on record.