Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT
O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.03.2024 for the AY 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds : “
“1. The appellant submits that the order of the learned First Appellate Authority is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant submits that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First appellate Authority ought not to have rejected the condonation petition filed by the appellant and ought to have given due consideration to the reasons furnished for the delay in the interest of natural justice to the appellant.
3. The appellant submits that the learned first appellate authority ought to have held that order under section 147 passed in the case of the appellant is bad in law for want of jurisdiction.
4. Without prejudice to ground No 2 and 3 hereinabove, the appellant prays that the addition of made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the appellant for AY 2017-18 be deleted.
5. The appellant prays to submit that the learned appellate authority erred in sustaining the entire investment of Rs.3,75,00,000/- in land (made by 11 persons) as against invested by the appellant towards his share of 10% in the total land.
6. The appellant submits that, on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned first appellate authority ought to have taken on record and examined the sources of the investment made by the appellant.
7. The appellant submits that, on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned first appellate authority ought to have admitted the clubbing petition of the appellant praying for clubbing of his appeal along with two other appeals that are of the other co-purchasers of the property, and adjudicated all the three appeals together.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee was served a notice under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act dt.31.03.2021 via email by the department based on the information available through AIMS regarding purchase of immovable property by the assessee for an amount of Rs.37,500,000/- during the relevant period. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had not filed his income tax return for the relevant assessment year. Despite multiple notices issued under section 142(1) on various dates (14/12/2021, 17/01/2022, 31/01/2022), assessee failed to comply with any of them. Assessing Officer in his last notice dated 31/01/2022, warned the assessee with respect to potential consequences to be faced, if compliance continued to be neglected. Despite receipt of these notices, assessee did not respond or furnish the required documents and returns. Consequently, Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-Tax Act, based on the available information and statutory provision, interalia making an addition of Rs.37,500,000 as unexplained income and passed assessment order on 04.03.2022. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty notices under sections 271AAC(1) and 271F for non-filing of original and revised returns, and also under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of assessee.
Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us.
Firstly, the ld. AR has drawn our attention to the registered sale deed dated 18.01.2017 executed by Sri Raj Kumar Singh and Sri Mukesh Singh in favour of 11 persons mentioned in the said deed. It was submitted that the assessee is one of the purchasers of the land in question along with ten others for a total consideration of Rs.3.75 crores. In this regard, ld. AR has drawn our attention to pages 7, 8 and 9 of the sale deed wherein the details of the amount paid by the individual / purchaser were given. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had made addition of the entire amount of Rs.3.75 crores in the hands of the assessee despite the fact that the assessee was only the owner of 1/11th share in the profit. Further, it was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was duly explained. However, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the condonation application filed by the assessee.
6.1 The ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information and appear before the lower authorities due to some unavoidable reasons. Hence, the ld. AR requested the Bench to remand the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR further submitted that as the assessee has sufficient cause from putting in appearance before the lower authorities, matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication.
Per contra, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and also the orders passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), we found that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine, as he opined that the assessee has offered unsubstantiated reasons for delay of 216 days in filing of appeal and furthermore, the reasons offered by the assessee are not having any sufficient cause with proper explanation. On perusal of assessment order, we found that based on the information available with AIMS, Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee u/s 148 calling for information for not filing return of income during the assessment year even after purchasing immovable property for an amount of Rs.3.75 crores and hence, the Assessing Officer believed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as per clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act. Thus, the assessee has failed to prove his case before the lower authorities even after granting several opportunities.
8.1. Undoubtedly, in the present case, assessee has not complied statutory notices served to him from time to time, even after grant of ample opportunities. Before the ld.CIT(A), assessee has not filed the appeal within the time and also not properly explained the delay caused in filing the appeal. However, in our view, the ends of justice will be met, if the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for a denovo consideration with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.
The assessee shall produce the all the details as called for by the Assessing Officer in his show cause notice dt.31.01.2022 to prove his case and the Assessing Officer shall examine all those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and any other documents which may be filed by the assessee as additional evidence. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall examine those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and also the other documents available on record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits, as we are setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd July, 2024.