Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-5 dated 25.11.2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’).
2 ITA No. 682/PUN/2017 A.Y.2012-13
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.[A] has erred in confirming the sales consideration of Rs.50,00,000l- instead of Rs.43,00,000/- exclusively on estimated basis ignoring the supporting documents and registered agreement. The aforesaid addition being arbitrary, perverse, based on surmises and conjecture the learned C.I.T. [A] ought to have deleted the said addition. The impugned additions may please be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances the claim u/s 54B and the said disallowances are based on surmises and conjectures and the same may please be deleted. 3. The appellant denies his liability to pay any interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act 1961 and hence the same may please be deleted. 4.The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the sales
consideration at Rs.50,00,000/- instead of Rs.43,00,000/- and also against
disallowance of claim made u/s. 54B of the Act.
Despite the service of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any
application was filed for adjournment. A perusal of the record shows that the CIT(A) to
have dismissed the appeal of assessee relied on the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of
Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ( Del.)
and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N.
Bhattachargee & ANR (1979) 118 ITR 461. The CIT(A) has decided the issue also on
merit by upholding the order of Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to appear
before her.
In the first instance, the CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio laid down by Delhi
Bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.(supra.) to
dismiss the appeal of assessee. Further, the issue has also been decided on merit
ex-parte the assessee upholding the order of Assessing Officer. The principle of
3 ITA No. 682/PUN/2017 A.Y.2012-13
natural justice demands that no person should be condemned unheard. Accordingly, the issues are restored back to the file of CIT(A) with direction to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to decide the issue on merit in accordance with law. Further, the assessee is directed to comply with the notice of hearing of CIT(A) and furnish complete details/ documents before CIT(A) in order to adjudicate the issues on merit. In view thereof, the grounds raised by assessee on merit are not being adjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2018.
Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 15th May, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals), Pune-5. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune-4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.
// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
�नजी स�चव /Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.