PUNIT POPAT ,KOLKATA vs. ITB,NFAC,DELHI, , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1359/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 April 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte for want of prosecution. The assessee claimed non-compliance was due to the COVID pandemic and lack of proper notice, leading to an ex parte order from the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and whether various deductions and disallowances made by the AO were correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 24(b),Section 57,Section 80C,Section 80TTA,Section 80D,Section 10(32)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.10.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1 For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

1.

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 4,38,673/- on account of interest of housing loan u/s 24(b) of the Act.

Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punit Popat 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the business loss to the tune of Rs. 17,26,428/- on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in any business activity during the year.

4.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs.97,53,262/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain.

5.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs.1,35,32,070/- under the head Income from other sources u/s 57 of the Act.

6.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in denying deduction claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,70,539/- u/s 80C, 80TTA and 80D made by the AO, CPC while processing the return.

7.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 2,430/- on account exempt income claimed by the assessee u/s 10(32) of the Act.

8.

The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal

or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case both the orders of the lower authorities i.e. assessment order as well as order of the CIT(A) are ex parte orders. An affidavit has been placed on file by the assessee, Shri Punit Popat, wherein, it has been deposed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the compliance of initial notice issued by the Assessing Officer was made by the assessee but later on compliance could not be made due to covid pandemic. It has been further explained that even the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte of the assessee for want of prosecution. It has been deposed in the affidavit that no physical notice was received by the assessee from the CIT(A). That the notice might have been issued on email which was not accessed to by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not in the knowledge of

More judgments on Section 24(b)

All 545 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →