MRS. SHARFDEEN FARIDHA BEGUM,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, NCC-1,, THANJAVUR
Facts
The assessee, an individual running a supermarket, filed an appeal against an order confirming the Assessing Officer's order, which had reopened the assessment for AY 2014-15. The reopening was based on information that the assessee sold properties attracting Section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed long-term capital gains and made other additions, which were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee.
Held
The ITAT noted that the assessee is an NRI and had not participated in previous appellate proceedings due to her husband's demise and her NRI status, leading to previous orders being passed ex-parte. The Tribunal acknowledged the undertaking by the assessee's AR to participate diligently in future proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be allowed to be adjudicated denovo before the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity, considering her NRI status and recent personal circumstances.
Sections Cited
50C, 148, 143(3), 147, 40(A)(3), 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.07.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee is an individual running a supermarket in the name of Oriental Super Market. The assessee filed its
:-2-: ITA. No: 2361/Chny/2024 return of income on 01.04.2015 for the assessment year 2014- 15, declaring an income of Rs.15,30,150/-. As per the information with the Assessing Officer, the assessee sold four properties during the year under consideration, wherein the sale value as per the documents attracts applicability of section 50C of the Act and reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 21.09.2017. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by computing long term capital gains at Rs.4,27,90,836/- adopting the guideline value as per section 50C of the Act. Since, the assessee had not offered any income under the head capital gains, the Assessing Officer added the value of sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act, along with certain other additions u/s. 40(A)(3) of the Act and u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the same was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) as there was no compliance from the assessee to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A)-1, Trichy and passed an order dated 10.01.2020. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A)-1, Trichy, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal has set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remitted back the file to the
:-3-: ITA. No: 2361/Chny/2024 ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on denovo in accordance with law vide its order in ITA No. 678/Chny/2020 dated 07.12.2021.
As per the directions of the ITAT (Supra), the ld.CIT(A) provided with several opportunities of hearing and called for written submissions and documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee from 25.01.2023 to 22.07.2024. However, the assessee did not respond for any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC left with no option decided the appeal based on the available information on merits and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.07.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings with the first appellate authority and hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the appeal. Further, he stated that since the assessee is NRI and her husband has expired, she could not provide the details required for the appeal before the first appellate authority.
:-4-: ITA. No: 2361/Chny/2024 5. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has been given an opportunity both by the ld.CIT(A) and also by this Tribunal earlier and the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings and hence, the appeal may please be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the woman assessee is a NRI and the ld.CIT(A) has passed an order by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without participation of the assessee. We note that the ld.AR has undertaken to participate in the appellate proceedings without fail, if one more opportunity is given before the ld.CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee from time to time as and when called for. Therefore, in the interests of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remit back the file to the ld.CIT(A) by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal denovo in accordance with law. However, the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings for the second time and hence, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days
:-5-: ITA. No: 2361/Chny/2024 from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 28th November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 28th November, 2024 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु�/CIT – Madurai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
