Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)I, Noida dated 30.11.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in stating that the assessee has not attended the hearings on various dates when AR of appellant has sought adjournment with his letter dated 18.10.2017 with valid reasons. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated Jhe issue on merits. It is a settled law that even the administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Recently the ITAT Delhi vide order dated 04.05.2016 in the I.T.ANo.-2379/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) Abhinav Dwivedi vs ITO also said that before passing the order, a reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the assessee.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by not giving opportunity of hearing on the appeal filed by the appellant thereby sustaining the action of the A.O right in doing addition of Rs. 6,72,880 in LTCG made by the AO, which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and holding the order of A.O as confirmed, which is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts as it was passed:- i) By not considering / overlooking the support and evidences submit for alteration/ renovation amount to Rs. 4,00,000/-. ii) By not considering the investment in new house amounting by Rs. 1,00,000. iii) By ignoring the facts and records produced during assessment proceedings.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while the assessee did not get justice from the Assessing Officer, he was denied the principles of natural justice by the Ld. CIT (A) also, which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.
That the appellant prays that the matter be decided on merits.”
The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who is a management consultant and besides the consultancy income is source of income is bank interest and annuity pension from life insurance Corporation of India. Assessee filed as return of income on 23/7/2013 declaring total income of ₹ 6 15440/–. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has earned capital gain on sale of residential house 4 ₹ 1.2 crores and assessee furnish the competition of the capital gain. The learned assessing officer examine the competition of the capital gain and held that long-term capital gain of ₹ 7 68660 is assessable in the hands of the assessee against ₹ 9 5780 shown by the assessee and therefore he made an addition of ₹ 672880/– consequently the the assessment under section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 22/3/2016 determining the total taxable income of the assessee at ₹ 12 88320/-.
The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of income tax appeals. The learned CIT – A passed in order on 30/11/2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee has shot in adjournment wide letter dated 18/10/2017 due to the festival reasons and date of tax audit. According to the learned commissioner of income tax appeals this is not a valid reason for seeking in adjournment and therefore he dismiss the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee is not serious to prosecute its case and therefore the opening for purpose is to be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore he confirmed the Page | 2