Loading judgment…
Facts
For AY 2014-15, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 18,38,480/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,72,68,400/-, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,91,06,880/-, primarily due to an undervalued land purchase after issuing a notice u/s 143(2). The CIT(A) sustained the AO's additions and dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the case on its merits.
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the additions made by the AO under section 143(3) concerning undervalued land purchase.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.03.2023, relating to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld, A.O. in assuming jurisdiction and framing the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is. not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 2,72,68,400/- and that too without proper appreciation of facts on record and by recording incorrect facts and findings, and making allegations without any basis, material and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice.
3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.2,72,68,400/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CiT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned ex-parte order and that too without any basis, material or evidence and without appreciating / considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in charging interest, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Brief facts of the case are that Assessee filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 18,38,480/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business of colonizing and trading in real estate. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS and thereafter the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee was asked to justify for undervalued purchase of the land but no clear explanation was received from the Assessee’s end and hence, the additions were added to the taxable income of the assessee by assessing the total income at Rs. 2,91,06,880/-. Against the AO’s order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order 23.3.2023 has sustained the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, because the assessee has not filed any written submission/ document with respect to ground raised
in Form
35. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the outset, it is noted that in this case Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the merits of the case, but it has applied the Multiplan case and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 2 In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) should have passed the order on merits of the case, which he has not done. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.