SHREE SHANTINATH BUILDERS,NALLASOPARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, THANE, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2074/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order upholding the addition under section 43CA did not discuss the merits of the case, violating statutory conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the NFAC due to alleged non-compliance to appeal notices, despite the appellant claiming to have filed written submissions and the appeal having been physically heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified, and whether the addition made under section 43CA was correctly upheld without a detailed adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43CA,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)

Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-

24/1061644109(1) dated 28.02.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

“1. The Hon. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal exparte, for alleged non-compliance to appeal notices, when in reality, written submission was already filed on 09.05.2018 before the Hon. CIT(A) 3, Thane and the appeal was physically heard on 09.05.2018 & 24.07.2018 respectively, by the Hon. CIT(A) 3, Thane and therefore the order dismissing the appeal for non-attendance is not justified and may kindly be quashed/set aside.

2.

The Hon. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal exparte, for alleged non-compliance to appeal notices, when the appellant was not aware of such notices issued and for this reason, the order dismissing the appeal for non- attendance is not justified and may kindly be quashed/set aside.

3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex- parte, for alleged non-compliance to hearing notices, without deciding the appeal on the merits and for this reason also the order of the Hon. CIT(A) is bad-in-law and required to be set aside.

3 M/s. Shree Shantinath Builders 4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,22,96,654/- u/s 43CA of the I.T Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual sale consideration and the value as per stamp valuation authority, in respect of development rights/FSI sold by the appellant at village Nilemore, Tal Vasai, District Thane, not appreciating that such addition was not justified and merited deletion.

5. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,22,96,654/- u/s 43CA of the I.T Act 1961, by imposing the values as per stamp valuation authority to be the deemed sale consideration in respect of development rights/FSI sold by the appellant, without referring the valuation to the valuation officer as provided u/s 43CA(2) of the LT Act 1961.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.”

4.

It emerges at the outset from a perusal of the learned

CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion that the impugned 43CA addition of Rs.122,96,654/- representing actual sale price vis- à-vis stamp valuation of the relevant stock in trade sold herein, has been upheld in the lower appellate findings in paragraph 5 to 5.5 without even discussing anything on merits thereby violating the relevant statutory condition in section 250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication there. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication as per law. The same shall be subject to a rider that it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →