SMT.SURAJDEVI SIPANI,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 551/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 November 2019AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income-tax Department within one month.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the real estate business, filed a return of income. Following a survey, the Assessing Officer made additions to the total income, including disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and adjustments to Long Term Capital Gains. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of written submissions and documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity, and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALESmt. Surajdevi Sipani,

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 25.11.2019Pronounced: 27.11.2019

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore passed u/s. 143(3) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in Real Estate business and filed Return of Income on 28.09.2012 with total income of Rs.3,10,11,130 and survey under Section 133A was conducted in the premises of assessee on 23.08.2011. The Assessing Officer considering the submissions made by the assessee dealt on the disputed issue of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and cost of acquisition and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and assessed Section 143(3) dt.27.02.2015 computing the LTCG Rs.6,41,94,232. Aggrieved by assessment order the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT (Appeals) whereas the CIT (Appeals) has posted the case for hearing on 21.9.2016, 24.11.2017 and 8.12.2017. But the assessee though appeared on 23.9.2016 and 29.12.2017 but there are no written submissions or documentary evidences filed or furnished details inspite of granting opportunities. Hence the learned CIT (Appeals) based on the material available on record and the findings of the Assessing Officer has dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals) the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal exparte and prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate the merits of case. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT (Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the CIT(Appeals) order, we found that the assessee was provided opportunity of hearing but could not submit the written submissions. We, considering the principles of natural justice and the reasons envisaged by learned AR, consider it appropriate to restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) but considering the facts on record with respect to non-appearance of the

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →