Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.13,76,190/- to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2020-21, arising from the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement under section 48(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This addition was subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this decision before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had denied the assessee a personal hearing despite a specific request, which constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and then decide the case afresh according to law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s order is invalid due to the denial of a personal hearing to the assessee, constituting a violation of natural justice; Whether the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement under section 48(ii) was justified.
Sections Cited
48(ii), 143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & MS. MADHUMITA ROY
Order
: 10.07.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 18.04.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21.
Grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the impugned order dated 18th April 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)") is bad in law and void ab initio.
2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in:
(a) Passing a non-speaking order, and (b) Relying upon decision of Hon'ble ITAT in case of ITO vs Bhanwar Lal order dated 23-08-2019 in without appreciating and noting that this decision is not relevant to the adjudication of issue under consideration.
3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order by violating settled principals of natural justice, i.e inter alia not providing an opportunity of being heard in person.
That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding a disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs.5,00,000/- (having indexed value of Rs.13,76,190/- claimed as deduction u/s 48(ii) of the Act by the appellant. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO 1 CIT(A) have erred in holding 1 upholding that the appellant has not been able to substantiate the basis of its deduction of Rs.13,76,190/- claimed u/s 48(ii) of the Act.
That on facts and in law the order of assessment dated 07th September 2022 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w 144B of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio.”
Brief facts of the case are that Assessing Officer in this case made addition of Rs.13,76,190/- being variation in respect of issue of disallowance of index cost of improvement in respect of Phase-
1. 1.
4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same.
5. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
6. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Despite specific request of the assessee of personal hearing, personal hearing was not granted. He submitted that Rule 12 of the Faceless Assessment Procedure duly provides that where assessee request personal hearing, hearing should be granted by the CIT (A)/NFAC and assessee should be heard.
7. Upon carefully considering the issue and hearing both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served if the matter is remitted to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the matter as per law.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of July, 2024.