KANCHANA S,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 9 (2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3388/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 March 2020AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) who passed the order did not hear the appellant, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property for Rs. 16,00,000, but the stamp duty guideline value was Rs. 1,26,60,000. The AO completed the assessment by adopting the guideline value as deemed consideration under Section 50C. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, directing the AO to use the DVO's valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when it was passed without affording a proper hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 05.03.2020Pronounced: 05.03.2020

Shri B. Suresh, C.A : अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 05.03.2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of pronouncement : 05.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 15.10.2019 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The appellant namely Smt. S. Kanchana is an individual, deriving income under the head “capital gains”. The return of income for the A.Y 2007-08 was not filed within the time prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). However, the return of income was filed on 24.02.2014 after receipt of the letter issued by ACIT, Non- Corporate Circle-9, Chennai calling upon the information regarding sale of property. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant sold property during the previous year relevant to the A.Y under consideration for apparent consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/- as against the guidelines value for the purpose of the registration of the sale deed of Rs. 1,26,60,000/-. Based on this information, the ITO, Non Corporate Ward-9(2), Chennai (hereinafter ‘AO’) formed opinion that the income escaped assessment to tax, accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 19.03.2015. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 14.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at total income of Rs. 1,17,65,240/- adopting the guidelines value for stamp duty purpose as deemed consideration u/s. 50C of the Act while computing income under capital gain arising on sale of property.

3 -: 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal, however, with a direction that the valuation done by the DVO be taken as deemed consideration AO overruling objections filed by the assessee against the DVO’s report. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

6.

The ld. Counsel submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A), who heard the matter is different from the CIT(A), who passed the order. The new incumbent passed order without hearing the appellant. Thus, he submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice.

7.

The Ld. CIT-DR had not controverted the above submissions of the assessee.

8.

We heard the rival submissions and perused material available on record. In view of the above undisputed submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity being heard to the appellant.

4 -: 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on the 05th day of March, 2020 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →