Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer added Rs.55,47,000/- as long term capital gains after the assessee failed to respond adequately to opportunities given for presenting facts. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, noting that the assessee did not avail opportunities despite notices being issued.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not diligent in presenting their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), with either no or partial compliance to notices. The assessee's AR pleaded lack of awareness of procedures and prompt advice from the tax consultant.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's failure to adequately present facts before tax authorities warrants setting aside the order and remanding the case.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH PATNA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 O R D E R
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member :
This appeal arises from the order u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 11.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
In this case, the ld. Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is recorded in pages 2 and 3 of the Assessing Officer’s order that the assessee did not respond adequately to opportunities given to him for presenting the facts. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.55,47,000/- as long term capital gains.
2.1. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not succeed on the ground that as many as four notices issued for presenting the case before Sameer Kumar, AY: 2018-19, the Ld. CIT(A), were issued but the assessee did not avail of the opportunity so provided. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the action of the Assessing Officer.
2.2. Before us, the assessee has ventilated his grievances and has used various extracts from the impugned order in the grounds of appeal to attempt showing that the findings are erroneous. The assessee has also challenged the action of Assessing Officer in terms of assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act.
2.3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also gone through the records. We find that both before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not been diligent in persuading his matter. In fact, before both of the authorities either no compliance has been made to the notices issued or only part compliances have been made. Before us, the Ld. AR pleaded that since the assessee was not aware of the Income Tax procedures and was not promptly advised by his tax consultant, hence, he could not present the full facts before either of the authorities below. Considering these submissions and the facts on record, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to present the full facts before the ld. CIT(A) and in case, any new evidence is filed before him then the Ld. CIT(A) would do well to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.