RAJESH BIRTHARE ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(4) , INDORE, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 111/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 September 2024AY 2012-201310 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication afresh. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grounds, which included issues of jurisdiction, merits of additions, lack of opportunity, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal noted that both appeals related to the same Assessment Year 2012-13 but originated from different assessment orders by different AOs concerning different parcels of the same property sold by the assessee. The assessee claimed joint ownership with his brother and mother, but the entire sale proceeds were taxed in his hands, and also in his mother's hands, without allowing deductions. The Tribunal found that the orders of the first appellate authority were passed under the Faceless Scheme without giving adequate opportunities to the assessee. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's objections against the jurisdiction assumed by two different AOs and the merits of the additions. Therefore, to ensure natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in the hearings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Rajesh Birthare, filed two appeals (ITA No. 111/Ind/2024 and ITA No. 112/Ind/2024) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, for Assessment Year 2012-13. Both appeals challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose from assessment orders passed by different Assessing Officers (AOs) under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, along with his brother and mother, sold ancestral agricultural land. The AO's actions involved re-opening the assessee's case and adding the full sale consideration without allowing deductions for indexed cost of acquisition and other deductions. The assessee claimed that notices were not served, he was unaware of the proceedings, and no opportunity was given. The appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices from the Faceless Appeal Centre. The assessee also raised objections regarding jurisdiction and the assessment of the entire income of all sellers in his hands.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following issues: 1. Whether the assessment orders passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are bad in law and invalid due to lack of proper service of notice and opportunity of being heard to the assessee? 2. Whether the assessment proceedings are bad in law because two different Assessing Officers assessed two different incomes of the same assessee under the same provisions (Section 147/148), contrary to the scheme of taxation requiring assessment by the jurisdictional assessing officer only? 3. Whether the appeals decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) under the Faceless Scheme are bad in law due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices, citing reasons of being not tech-friendly and his mother's ill health? Assessee's Contentions: - The notices under Section 148 were not served at the correct address, and the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings. - The AOs added the full sale consideration without allowing deductions for indexed cost of acquisition and other permissible deductions. - The assessment orders passed under Section 144 without giving an opportunity to the assessee and serving a show-cause notice are invalid. - Two different AOs assessing the same assessee under Section 147/148 is against the scheme of taxation. - The appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices from the Faceless Appeal Centre and his mother's critical health condition. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative agreed to the proposal of remanding the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to attend hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.09.2024Pronounced: 26.09.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 111/Ind/2024
ITA No. 112/Ind/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

These are the two appeals filed by assessee. The first appeal being ITA 111/Ind/2024 is directed against appeal-order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Page 1 of 10

Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore.

& 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 08.11.2019 passed by ITO-3(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. The second appeal being ITA 112/Ind/2024 is directed against another appeal- order dated 11.12.2023 passed by same CIT(A) which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.12.2018 passed by a different AO, namely ITO- 3(2), Indore u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Both of these matters relate to very same Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13.

2.

None appeared at assessee’s behest nor any adjournment application filed at the time when the case was called. Therefore, the matter was passed over and once again called at the end of board. Still none appeared. Ld. DR for revenue was, however, ready for submissions. On perusal of case file with the able assistance of Ld. DR, it is found that these matters can be decided on the basis of material held on record. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the matters are being decided on the basis of case file and submissions of Ld. DR.

3.

The grounds raised by assessee in these appeals are re-produced below:

Page 2 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 ITA 111/Ind/2024: Page 3 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 ITA 112/Ind/2024: Page 6 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 Page 7 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. & 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13

4.

A perusal of grounds raised by assessee reveals that both of these appeals relate to very same AY 2012-13 but originate from two different assessment-orders passed by two different AOs u/s 144/147. The additions made by respective AOs are qua different parcels of same property sold by assessee. It is a claim of assessee that the sold assets were jointly owned by assessee as well as brother and mother of assessee but entire sale proceeds have been taxed in assessee’s hands and also assessee’s mother and that too without giving deduction of any cost as allowable in terms of provisions of the Act. Further, the orders of first appellate authority being CIT(A) have been passed under Faceless Scheme without giving adequate opportunities to assessee. The assessee has serious objections against the jurisdictions assumed by two different AOs in his case as well as on merits of the additions made by those AOs. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by CIT(A) require an apt adjudication qua the claims of assessee. Hence, it would be better to remand these matters at the level of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on all issues of assessee. Ld. DR for revenue immediately agreed to the proposal of bench to restore these matters to lower-authority, however he prayed that a direction be given to assessee to attend the hearings before lower authority.

5.

In view of above and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order

Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore.

& 112/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13 uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →