Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/03/2015 passed by CIT(A)-Muzaffarnagar. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.
“That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of cost of improvement/transfer expenses/cost on account of surrender of rights payable to Sh. Ashok Jain and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the evidences and submissions of the assessee.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of cost of improvement/transfer expenses/cost on account of surrender of rights payable to Sh. Ashok Jain is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing the benefit of exemption to the tune of Rs.77,47,792/- to the assessee, being the surplus on sale of agricultural land. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an aggregate addition of Rs.2,27,47,792/- and that too by treating the same as short term capital gain and that too in the year under appeal is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and has further erred in holding that the transfer of the impugned land took place in the year under appeal. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the evidences filed by the assessee and that too without any basis and the impugned order has been passed without grating adequate opportunity of hearing.”
The main grievance of the assessee vide Ground No. 5 relates to the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the evidence filed by the assessee, without granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed a return of income on 26/9/2010 declaring a loss of Rs.1,79,729/- which was processed and subsequently selected for scrutiny. The A.O made the addition of short term capital gain of Rs. 2,27,47,792/-. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld.CIT(A) who passed ex-parte order and did not accept the claim of the assessee that the land was agricultural land on which short term capital gain was worked out, was sold in the earlier year. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee furnished various documents in support of its claim that the land in question was an agricultural land and sold in the earlier year, therefore, the short term capital gain worked out by the A.O was on the basis of incorrect facts of the case. It was further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) without providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, so there was violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Dr strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee furnished its written submissions which were considered by the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and rejected the claim made in the written submissions. In our opinion an opportunity of being heard was required to be given to the assessee if the Ld.CIT (A) was not satisfied with the submissions made before him, so there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 7/11/2016)