Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 challenges additions made by the lower authorities regarding long-term capital gains and disallowance of expenditure. The assessee claimed that a change of address led to non-intimation to departmental authorities during the appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A)/NFAC afforded multiple opportunities, the findings did not meet the rigor of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for proper adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority's order meets the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 37(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)
Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-
24/1060589595(1) dated 07.02.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act’).
Agrawal in person as well as the department. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action adding high term capital gains of Rs.29,26,076/- and expenditure disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act of Rs.1,22,266/-, in the course of assessment dated 28.12.2017 and upheld in the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s ex-parte lower appellate discussion.
Learned departmental representative invited our attention to page 3, para 4 of the lower appellate discussion.
She submits that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC herein had afforded as many as eight opportunities to the assessee to explain its case which the latter failed to avail. Ms. Dhivya Ruth J. accordingly draws strong support from both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned addition. Shri Vineet Agrawal; who claims himself to the assessee’s/company’s director, submits that the foregoing lapse during the course of lower appellate proceedings was on could not be effectively intimated to the departmental authorities.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions. The fact remains that although it could be noticed that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC had indeed afforded various opportunities to the assessee, its lower
appellate findings in para 5 to 5.2 do not satisfy the rigor of section 250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon.
We thus restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that it shall be the tax payer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Delay of 60 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of the fact that the assessee has filed
medical records of its concerned persons during the limitation period. Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs., back that all these technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2024.