Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This is an assessee’s appeal directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Bangalore dated 30.08.2016 for Assessment Year 2008-09.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The impugned ex-parte Appellate order dated 30-08-2016 passed by the Learned CIT(A), is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the Appellate order ex-parte without providing the sufficient and adequate opportunity to the Appellant to represent the matter in accordance with law.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the AO without appreciating the submissions of the Appellant and also the relevant documents.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 9,78,491/- without considering the Appellant Page 2 of 3 claim towards the expenditure incurred for Stamp Duty, Registration Fee, Brokerage and other expenses for improvement of the property by way of alternation to have proper civic amenities.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. For these grounds and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that your Hon’ble Authority be pleased to pass orders setting aside the ex-parte Appellate Order dt: 30-08- 2016 for re-adjudication of the issues on merits of the case and further be pleased to pass such other order granting such other relief as your Hon’ble Authority may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT(A) is ex-parte order. He submitted that as per para no. 3 of the order of CIT(A), the last notice of hearing dated 29.07.2016 was served through the AO for hearing on 29.08.2016 and the impugned order has been passed by CIT(A) on 30.08.2016. He submitted that the ld. AR of assessee was preoccupied in some urgent work and therefore, he could not appear on 29.08.2016 but he had appeared on 02.09.2016 and made written submissions and submitted other documents such sale deed dated 11.09.2006 and some other documents. He submitted that these documents are made available in the paper book on pages 1 to 21 of paper book. Since the order was already passed by CIT(A) on 30.08.2016, the same could not be considered by him. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after considering these .The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT (A).
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that on 13.06.2016, the assessee sent a letter of adjournment through registered post as per the copy along with the registered post receipt issued by the postal department made available on page no. 26 of paper book. On pages 1 to 21 of paper book is copy of written submissions which is said to be made available before the CIT(A) on 02.09.2016. But the impugned order has been passed by CIT(A) on 30.08.2016 and therefore, the written submissions and other documents could not be considered by CIT(A). Under these facts, in my considered opinion and in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A)
Page 3 of 3 for fresh decision after considering the various documents brought on record by assessee. Hence I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision. The assessee can bring the evidence on record before CIT(A) in support of its contentions and CIT(A) should pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.