MANISH KUMAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIR-5, PATNA, PATNA
Facts
The assessee's return for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny. The AO noticed a difference between the government value and purchase value of two land parcels purchased by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 89,50,000/-. This difference was added to the assessee's income.
Held
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution without examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal found this to be unjustified and decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) solely on procedural grounds, without examining the merits, is justified. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250, 143(2), 142(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad…………….....…..…………………....Appellant Prop. Laxmi International, Purushottam Plaza, Makhania Kuan, Patna, Bihar- 800004. [PAN: BGPPK2783L] vs. DC/AC, Circle-5, Patna….……….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 30, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. At the outset, the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause for such delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case.
II.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving consecutive notices of hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep this appeal pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee, we proceed to decide the appeal with the help of ld. DR and also considering the material available on record. 4. Brief facts of the care are that in the case of the assessee, return filed for the assessment year 2017-18 by declaring income of Rs.91,70,100/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS followed notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response to the notices, the assessee filed various details as asked for. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee purchased two piece of land, the details of which are as under:
Sale deed/date Government Purchase value Difference of value of the paid by the Govt. value and land assessee purchase value (consideration) 7606/20.09.2016 1,12,50,000/- 88,00,000/- 24,50,000/- 7239/02.09.2016 1,35,00,000/- 70,00,000/- 65,00,000/- Total 89,50,000/-
4.1 From the above facts, the Assessing Officer found that there is difference between Govt. value and purchase value consideration of Rs.89,50,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the above difference amount to the income of the assessee and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.1,81,20,000/-.
II.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite receiving three consecutive notices, the assessee failed to appear or present his case. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The ld. DR supported the decisions rendered by the authorities below.
We, after hearing of the ld. DR and reviewing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte order denying the adequate opportunity to present the case by the assessee. We note that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merits and decided only on the ground of non-compliance on the part of the assessee. We, therefore, find that the dismissal of appeal solely on the procedural ground without examining the merits of the case which is essential u/s 250(6) of the Act, is not justified. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to provide the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his case to ensure just and fair assessment. We, therefore, remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the case on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. We also direct the assessee to diligently comply with the notices issued and promptly participate in the remand proceedings without any further delay.
II.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad 9. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 31st January, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 31.01.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Manish Kumar Prasad 2. DC/AC, Circle-5, Patna 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
