Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold a property and received consideration amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000 in FY 2011-12. This amount was withdrawn and used to purchase a new property, with remaining funds deposited in 2013-14. The assessee claimed that due to a communication gap with their tax consultant, they could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A), resulting in the appeal being dismissed for non-prosecution without an adjudication on merits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Considering the assessee's prayer and the potential fault of the tax consultant, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed for fresh consideration before the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution caused by a communication gap with the tax consultant.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “C” BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav DubeyShri Vinod S. Joshi, CA Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18.03.2024 vide DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2003-24/1062845696(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1 I had sold the property during the FY 2011-12 and the details of the s aid property are has been attached for reference. In F.Y. 2011-12, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1, 20, 00, 000 have been received through as follows: Serial No. Instrument No. Date of realization Amount in Rs. 1 2 Sharanabasappa Bapugowda Patil 646681 25/07/2011 10,00,000 2 6466 83 10/08/2011 10,00,000 3 646684 02/09/2011 25,00,000 4 139198 12/09/2011 75,00,000 Total: 1, 20, 00,000 And the same has been withdrawn as and when the money is realized in bank for the purpose of buying a new property and hold the cash in hand for the purpose of good options in future and the same amounts were deposited again in the year 2013-14 to take demand draft towards consideration for the purpose of purchasing a new property. And apart from this, I have income from agriculture as well and the supporting documents have been produced at the time of hearing and attached for your reference.”
3. At the time of hearing the AR of the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) properly, as a result of which the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non prosecution. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) it is found that the ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the issue of merits. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel of the assessee vehemently submitted that due to communication gap between the assessee and the Tax Consultant there was non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that for the fault of the Tax Consultant the assessee should not suffer and requested that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A).
4. Considering the prayer of the assessee we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and fair play we remit the entire issue involved in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to decide the issue in accordance with law after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & to file the necessary submissions/ documents/evidences & satisfy them regarding the genuineness of the claim made by him. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
3 Sharanabasappa Bapugowda Patil 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st July, 2024.