Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed their return of income for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by disallowing a claim of exemption under section 54B and adding expenses due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed these additions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) reiterated the assessment order without a logical discussion on merits and failed to state points for determination, decision, and reasons as required. The tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was based on merits and whether proper procedure was followed in the appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
250(6), 143(3), 54B, 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A), Gwalior/10098/2016-17 by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), Mysore u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. First appellate authority confirmed the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 23.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Brief facts state that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.3,73,160/-. On the basis of AIR information, the assessment was completed vide order dated 23.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, assessing total income of Rs.14,84,160/- after disallowing the claim of exemption amounting to Rs.10,11,000/- made by assessee u/s. 54B of the Act out of the long term capital gains, which arose on sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer further added an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses debited in the profit and loss account for want of supportive documentary evidences.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was placed on record, which was rejected. We have perused the records and heard the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue who supported the impugned order.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the first appellate authority, as tabulated in para-4 of the impugned order. It is, however, noticed that the ld. CIT(Appeals) himself has mentioned in the impugned order that in reply dated 29.11.2024, the assessee prayed to keep the first appeal in abeyance, as an appeal (ITA No. 368/Agr/2018) is pending before the Tribunal against the 2 | P a g e order dated 31.03.2021 passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Before us also, a written submission dated 03.04.2025 of the assessee is available on record, which speaks the same, stating that the has been heard and the order is awaited.
We notice that learned CIT(Appeals) has, though, reiterated the entire assessment order in the impugned order, however, the conclusion is not based on any logical discussion on merits, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. We observe that in case assessee succeeds in obtaining an order of ITAT against section 263 order, in his favour, ld. CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the compliance of the same while passing the order afresh. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. 3 | P a g e
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 11.12.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.04.2025.