DEEPAK KUMAR DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

[hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 27.01.2021 as passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai for the Assessment Year

[A.Y.] 2018-19. Deepak Kumar Doshi

The grounds of appeal are as under:

(a) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. [FAO] erred in making an addition of Rs. 57,20,450/- to the other income of the appellant under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, without appreciating the facts and explanations provided by the appellant.

(b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A), NFAC also erred in confirming the same.

Factual matrix borne from the record shows that the assessee purchased a flat during the year. However, it was noted that the stamp duty value of flat purchased was Rs. 1,60,55,000/- whereas the assessee had shown the purchase value at Rs. 1,03,34,550/-. The difference of Rs. 57,20,450/- between the stamp duty value and purchase value was brought to tax income from other sources

w/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the appellate order, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had submitted only ‘Statement of Facts’. After that neither he replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated in table at page no 2. No reply whatsoever was submitted by the appellant. Deepak Kumar Doshi

We have carefully considered all the relevant aspects of the case, non-compliance of the assessee and the conclusions drawn by the lower authorities. It is apparent from the records that in the present case, no substantive hearing could take place owning to non-compliance on part of the assessee. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated at length on the issues involved without

making an independent analysis of the case himself. It is in the fitness of things to allow one last opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the matter before lower authorities in the interests of justice and fair-play. We find in quite a few cases that there is some degree of lack of proper communication wherever notices are sent through e-portal. Besides, we hold that as per the provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act, Ld. CIT(A) is obligated to state points for determination in appeal before him, the decision thereon and the reasons for determination. He has no power to dismiss appeal of assessee on account of non-

prosecution and without deciding on the merits of the case.

During the hearing, the Bench proposed for restoration of the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo consideration. The Revenue did not oppose this plea. Thus, in the interest of justice, we

deemed it appropriate to allow the appeal for statistical purposes Deepak Kumar Doshi

emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal of the assessee filed before him. Needless to state that the assessee will comply with notices

and any details sought by the appellate authority.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/11/2024. BEENA PILLAI PRABHASH SHANKAR (ante weet /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (WaTeR Wael /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: Has/Mumbai

feats /Date 14.11.2024 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

aTeRT ot vrata orate ‘Copy of the Order forwarded to: tert / The Appellant

2 verelf The Respondent. 3 HIPY SaGa / crr 4 fgurita ufarte, sree aciteita atftepzT pr, rar,

Mumbai

Page [5 Deepak Kumar Doshi

Seat wid //rrue Copy//

/ BY ORDER,

SU/ASTIS TSHR (dy. /Asstt. Registrar) STH Sate stfTeRA rat, Bench,

Mumbai.