Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALESmt. Surajdevi Sipani,
O R D E R
PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :
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).
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