Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against an order dated 26/08/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi/Ld.CIT(A). The assessee claimed that three notices were issued, and for the first notice, an adjournment was sought. However, for the subsequent two notices, issued within 14 days, the assessee could not respond, and the impugned order was passed. The assessee's representative pleaded for another opportunity to present the case before the Ld.CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and not decided on merits. Considering the submissions and observations, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue on merits, with a proper opportunity of being heard granted to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits was justified and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
56[2][x]
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI RENU JAUHRI
O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 26/08/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi/Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal:
Navin Vanvir Shah; A. Y.2018-19 1. “The order dated 26/08/2024 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067982425[1] passed by the Hon'ble CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the natural justice, against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed.
On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble C.I.T. (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.67,32,600/- on account of difference between Agreement Value and Stamp Duty Value as Income From Other Source under section 56[2][x] of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal
.” [ Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that three notices were issued to the assessee as narrated in para 4 of the impugned order. It is submitted that in respect of the first notice, assessee has filed a request for adjournment. However, in respect of the subsequent two notices which was issued within a gap of 14 days, assessee could not respond and immediately on 26/08/2024 the impugned order has been passed. The Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity to represent his case before the Ld.CIT(A).
4. The Ld.DR though objected to the same could not controvert that the decision appeal has not been decided on merit of the case and has been dismissed for non prosecution. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us.
5. Considering the submissions made by both sides and the observation herein above in the interest of justice we remit the appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue raised by the Navin Vanvir Shah; A. Y.2018-19 assessee by passing a detailed order on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.