Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER
PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 28/12/18 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-3, Bangalore for assessment year 2015-16 on following grounds of appeal. 1. The impugned order is unjust and much against all known canons of law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer. ACIT, Circle — 3(1)(1) has seriously erred in considering that the first independent house property as multiple units. 3.The Honorable CIT(A) — 3 has considered the facts of case, and has upheld the stand of the Assessing officer by considering house property as residential property
ITA No.335(B)/20 2 only. However, dismissing the appeal for non appearance of Appellant or his Authorized representative in person before the Hon'ble Commissioner Appeals -3, Bangalore. 4. The Honorable CIT(A) — 3 has not considered the submission made on online on 13/11/2018 and 06/12/2018. The facts are as under:
1)The petitioner is a retired employee of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, and is 81 years old, and has been unaware of the way of representation before Honorable CIT (A) — 3.
2)The petitioner has completely relied upon the authorized representative to present the case before Honorable CIT (A) — 3, who in turn has made the submissions online rather than submitting the same physically and appearing before CIT (A) — 3 for ongoing proceedings of the case.
3) The petitioner intended to abide by the law and not to violate any act, but was unaware of the process and proceedings before the various Income Tax authorities.
4) Due to Appellant's age factor and health issues, he was purely dependent on Authorized Representative and it was unfair and unlawful to dismissing the grounds only because of non appearance in person by authorized representative.
5) The Honorable CIT(A) — 3 has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the petitioner or his authorized representative has not appeared, and not made any submissions physically. In this connection the petitioner humbly prays that the necessary documents were uploaded through e-proceedings option in the official web site of the income tax department, and the petitioner is not having any intension to avoid or ignore the ongoing proceedings before The Honorable CIT(A) — 3, Bangalore.
ITA No.335(B)/20 3
6) Brief details of the properties held, sold and purchased as at 31st march, 2015 are as under:
SI. Description of the Remarks Date of property No. transaction 1 No.39, Sasta Obtained construction N ivas, Bhima permission for G+ 2, self Jyothi Lic Colony, 2nd occupied in 1st floor, let of of Cross, West of ground and second floor, chord Road, proof of Rajaji the same, sale deed copy, Nagar, plan approval, Khataand tax Bangalore paid receipts were - 560079 enclosed Copy of the sale deed as Purchase of 1.03 2 23/03/2005 per no.2503/2005 dated acres annx -1 23/03/2005 enclosed as per agricultural annx - 2 land at hosur Sale of 1.03 Copy of the sale deed 02/09/2014 3 acres no.12223/2014 dated of agricultural 02/09/2014 as per annx — land at hosur 3, the funds being used towards purchase of house property Sale proceeds of agricultural 4 18/03/2015 Purchase of land have been used house property towards purchase of house at Bangalore property at Bangalore as per saledeedno.10036/201 4-15 by claiming 54F.
The Petitioner states once again that he is having only 7) one residential house property at the time of sale of agricultural land at hosur and has invested the sale proceeds into a house property at Bangalore in favor of self, son and daughter-in-law,
The petitioner also submits that the Honorable CIT (A) — 8) 3 consider the fact of the single house prop being held by he petitioner at the time of investment in 2nd house property as at 18/03/2015.
ITA No.335(B)/20 4 9) The petitioner has paid Appeal fee of Rs.10,000/- 9) vide challan enclosed.
For the detailed reasons mentioned above and which 10) are going to be urged at the time of hearing, this authority may be pleased to delete the impugned disallowance U/s — 54F in the interest of justice and equity. The Appellant, humbly praying the appellate 11) authority to kindly allow the grounds of appeal 2nd WHERFORE, the appellant prays that for the reasons above and sated in the grounds of 3. peal and statement of fact, this authority may be pleased to delete the impugned additions in the interest of justice and equity.
At the outset Ld. ar submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal for nonappearance and nonproduction of relevant in support of his claim. He submitted that Ld. CIT (A) erred in recording the non-compliance of notices issued by the Department. Referring to page No. 20 of paper book filed before us, Ld. ar submitted that all the details to defend assessment order was filed electronically before Ld. CIT (A) which is self-explanatory. He submitted that assessee on 13/11/18 had filed all requisite details by way of written submissions, power of attorney before Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. CIT (A) while passing the order has ignored these submissions which are apart of record. Ld. ar thus contended that in non-disposal of issues on merits without considering the submissions filed has caused great prejudice to the assessee. Learn senior DR though supported the order of Ld.CIT (A), but could not refute contents of the E Proceedings Response Acknowledgement, placed at page 20 of paper book.
ITA No.335(B)/20 5 4. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us. 4.1 It is observed that the submissions advanced by assessee is part of record and has been filed before Ld. CIT (A) on 13/11/18, as per the notice issued by the 1st appellate authority. However, Ld. CIT (A) chose not to consider the submissions and has dismissed the appeal filed by assessee by wrongly observing that no details has been brought on record in support of the claim of assessee. In our considered opinion Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered and have should have passed a speaking order on merits. Therefore in the interest of natural Justice we set aside this issue back to learn CIT (A) with a direction to consider the claim of assessee in the light of the submissions on record as per law. Learn CIT (A) shall give proper opportunity to assessee of being heard and also shall call for any other details as required for in order to adjudicate the issue on merits. Assessee shall cooperate with Ld. CIT (A) and file all necessary requisite details as called for. Needless to say that proper opportunity shall be granted by Ld. CIT (A) as per law. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24-07-2019
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24-07-2019. *am Copy of the Order forwarded to:
ITA No.335(B)/20 6 1.Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7.Guard File
By Order Asst. Registrar
ITA No.335(B)/20 7
ITA No.335(B)/2019 8
ITA No.335(B)/2019 9