PREMPRAKASH GANGAPRASAD SARAOGI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 34(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 46, Premprakash Gangaprasad Saraogi Mumbai/10638/2019–20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017–18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assesse's appeal upholding the addition of Rs. 69,82,933/- as long term capital gain in the total income of the assessee made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated the 29.12.2019.

4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the proceedings.

5. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.

6. Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the said addition of LTCG is contrary to the facts of the case. Further submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex–parte without affording sufficient opportunities of hearing to assessee. Prayed to set aside impugned ex–parte order.

7. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.

Premprakash Gangaprasad Saraogi 8. Considering the submissions made before us, we find that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal merely on the ground of not being pursued by the assessee, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, the decision there on and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We are conscious of the fact, that the assessee sought adjournments on three occasions before the first appellate authority and such prayer on all three occasions was acceded to by the learned CIT(A). The assessee would have been more disciplined and punctual during the proceedings before learned CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and coorperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any Premprakash Gangaprasad Saraogi observations on the merits of the case. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed.

Order pronounced on 20.06.2024.