LAKSHMI TANUJA SUGGUNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 182/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 January 2025AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, observed that despite opportunities provided by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to appear or comply with the notices. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and the totality of facts, and in the interest of providing substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided that it was a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the capital gains addition but focused on procedural fairness.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lakshmi Tanuja Sugguna, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee sold immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 99,70,400/-, with her share being Rs. 14,24,340/-, making her liable for capital gains. As no return was filed, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 on March 29, 2019, followed by notices under Section 142(1) on August 30, 2019, November 7, 2019, and November 21, 2019, calling for the return and information. The assessee failed to comply. The AO then issued a show-cause notice on November 21, 2019, regarding treating Rs. 14,24,340/- as capital gains, to which there was no reply. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144, determining the income at Rs. 14,24,340/- and raising a demand of Rs. 8,05,510/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but again failed to provide supporting documents or attend hearings, leading the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), is in accordance with the facts and provisions of law? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144 and Section 250 of the Act). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Act). 3. Whether the disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act? (Question of law, concerning Section 250(6) of the Act). 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's plea that no sale transaction was effected by her, as erroneously understood by the AO? (Question of fact and law, concerning the basis of assessment under Section 148 and Section 144 of the Act). Assessee's contentions: The Ld. AR argued that both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunities for being heard. Therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the Ld. AO. The assessee also raised grounds that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte, violating natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act, and overlooked the assessee's submission that no sale transaction occurred. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitting that the assessee did not utilize the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR

आदेश /O R D E R

PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061729761(1) dated 29.02.2024 arising out of order passed Under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 05.12.2019 for the A.Y.2012-13.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Ld.Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] has received information that the assessee has sold immovable property vide sale document No.5060/2011 dated 01.08.2011 of SRO, Machilipatnam Krishna District along with six others during the A.Y. 2012-13 for a total consideration of Rs.99,70,400/- out of which the share of the assessee works out to Rs.14,24,340/-(99,70,400/7) and the assessee is liable for capital gains in her hands. Thereafter, since the assessee has not filed any return of income and declared income on capital gains, Ld. AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 with the prior permission of the concerned authorities. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 30.08.2019, 07.11.2019 & 21.11.2019 calling for filing of return of income and also certain information. In response, assessee failed to furnish either return of income or information called for. Further, Ld.AO issued show-cause notice on 21.11.2019 asking the assessee as to why Rs.14,24,340/- cannot be treated as income from capital gains. In response, assessee has not filed any reply. Therefore, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of Page No. 2 judgement under section 144 of the Act and determined income of the assessee at Rs.14,24,340/- and raised demand of Rs.8,05,510/-.

3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents onher contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based on the merits available on record.

4.

On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: -

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passedu/s 144 of the IT Act dt: 17.09.2021 that was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) NFAC vide order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act dt: 29.02.2024is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

3.

The disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's plea & statement of factswherein, the assessee submitted that there was no sale transactioneffected by the assessee, as erroneously understood by the AO,causing for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and completion of theassessment thereto.

5.

For these and such other grounds, that may be urged at the time ofhearing of subject appeal, the appellant prays that the orders of theLearned CIT(Appeals) u/s 250 of the Act are to be set aside.”

Page No. 3

5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. AO and Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Ld. AO, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.AO.

6.

On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and she pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

7.

We have heard both the sidesand perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the assessment order as well as Ld.CIT(A) order, it is observed that eventhough the Ld. AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of providing substantial justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the Page No. 4 matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. AO. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →