RAMASAMY PUSHPA,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in not giving a finding in respect of non-issue of notice/s. 143(2) of the act before completion of assessment. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority in not justified in not furnishing the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and also copy of approval given by the higher authorities in terms of section 151 of the Act when a specific request was made by the appellant by letter dated 07.04.2022 on the above aspects in the course of assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appeal authority is not justified in not giving a finding in respect of legal validity of the order raised by the appellant, in as much as the powers of the first appellate authority is co terminus with that of the assessing officer. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in giving a finding in para 4.2 of the appellate order to the effect that when the appellant did not make use of the opportunities given before the AO, loses the voice before the first appellate authority, in as much as the first appellate authority is vested with all plenary powers which the sub ordinate authority may have in the matter. In this connection reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Jute corporation of India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 187 ITR 688. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in not referring the property to the valuation cell of the Income tax department in as much as the guide lines fixed by the state Government is only for the limited purpose of collection of stamp duty and does not reflect the fair market value, even though this plea was made both before AO and also before the first appellate authority. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in not giving a finding as to the validity of the assessment order when there is change of incumbent and the new AO in completing the assessment without giving an opportunity.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident. According to Assessing Officer assessee has not filed her return of income for A.Y.2016-17. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act vide notice dated 29.03.2021 for the reason that the assessee had made transfer of capital asset during the Financial Year 2015-16 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. In response to notice issued u/s148, the assessee has not filed return of income. The assessee jointly along with her husband had purchased an immovable property (document No.2998/2015 dated 21.08.2015) for a sale consideration of Rs.1,41,61,000/-. On perusal of the said sale deed, AO observed that the market value of the property was fixed at Rs.1,62,93,000/-. Accordingly the assessment was completed on 26.05.2022 by adding the difference of Rs.21,32,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.05.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed submissions, however, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the income at Rs.10,66,000/- as the share of appellant is 50% only. Further with regard to basic exemption claimed, AO has been directed to verify whether the assessee is eligible for the same. On legal issues raised, ld. CIT(A) observed as under:-

On further appeal before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not properly adjudicated the matter. Ld.CIT(A) has not given specific findings on legal issues. Hence, he prayed for set aside the matter before Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Ld. DR, Shri ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A) in its order as referred in para 4.2 (supra) has not given sufficiently specific findings on the grounds 2,3,7 & 8 raised in appeal where return of income was filed on 07.04.2022. Therefore, we are of considered view that observation rendered by ld. CIT(A) on the grounds 2,3,7 & 8 are not specific, not free from ambiguity, indicating ill-founded in point of

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.279/Chny/2024 for assessment year 2016-2017 stands allowed for statistical purpose.