SANDEEP NAMDEO NIMHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2014/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 December 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was reassessed to include a significant amount from the sale of agricultural land. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to absence, despite the assessee requesting an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sandbhor
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 04.12.2024Pronounced: 06.12.2024

Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Pune. 114, Jaibhawani Nagar, Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune- 411021. PAN : AWBPN6316R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 04.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 31.12.2015 declaring total income of Rs.83,190/-. On the basis of information that income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.1,76,75,000/- being sale value of agricultural 147 of the IT Act. Notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee submitted that the land sold was not capital asset hence long term capital gain was not payable. After considering the reply of the assessee, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed by determining total taxable income at Rs.1,77,58,190/- against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.83,190/-. The above assessed income includes long term capital gain of Rs.1,76,75,000/-. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted that the appellant requested for adjournment but Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC rejected his request and proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to provide one opportunity to substantiate the ground of appeal

before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

4. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that various opportunities were allowed but the assessee remained absent.

5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment order and first appeal order were passed in the name of Suvarna Sandeep Nimhan whereas second appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by legal heir Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan. We also find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has provided total five opportunities to the appellant-assessee. Out of these five opportunities two were provided during Covid-19 period and only three hearings can be said to be effective hearings provided to the assessee. We also find that the fist effective hearing was provided on 13.06.2024, the second effective hearing was provided on 27.06.2024 and the last and final opportunity was granted on 29.07.2024. Out of three opportunities the assessee sought adjournment on last two dates but Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC considering all the five opportunities as provided to the assessee hold that multiple opportunities have already been provided to the assessee, rejected the adjournment application and proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte in the absence of appellant- assessee. Under the above circumstances and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find some force in the argument of Ld. AR that proper opportunity has not been provided to the assessee. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case we deem it fit to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal, otherwise, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →