Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in sale and purchase of land, filed its return for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment upon discovering a land purchase of Rs.1,37,25,000/- for which the assessee could not explain the source. An addition of Rs.45,75,000/- was made, determining the taxable income at Rs.45,67,347/-.
Held
The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to provide written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals) despite opportunities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remit the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration on grounds of natural justice.
Sections Cited
148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-CUTTACK ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.(-7,653/-) vide Acknowledgment No. 627894040200217 dated 20.02.2017. For the same year, a revised return was also filed by the assessee disclosing a total income of Rs.(-7,653/-) vide Acknowledgment No. 818911830220617 dated 22.06.2017. Ld. Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and from the verification details uploaded in the insight portal, it is seen that the assessee purchased a piece of land at a cost of Rs.1,37,25,000/-. During the course of investigation, the assessee could not explain the source of such investment. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee asking it to file return of income for the impugned assessment year. The assessee again disclosed the same dated 27.01.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Rs.45,67,347/- after making addition of Rs.45,75,000/- being the difference between the purchase value of Rs.1,37,25,000/- adopted by the Government authority for stamp valuation purchase and the actual consideration of Rs.91,50,000/- for purchase of land from Shri Tarun Kumar Nanda and others under the head income from other sources. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Shivani Industries 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 13th January, 2025.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.45,67,347/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. (A.Y. 2016-2017) Shivani Industries CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/05/2025.