NISARG DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1523/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 October 2024AY 2014-15Bench: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the non-compliance before the NFAC, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities. The assessee claimed the non-compliance was accidental and undeliberate, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 43CA,Section 139(4),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Singte [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 01/10/2024

V/s The Income Tax Officer, ....... प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-14(5), Pune. Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pramod Singte [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D.PADMAHSHALI, AM; By present appeal, the assessee challenges DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061408272(1) dt. 23/02/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ onwards] by the first appellate authority [‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ onwards] which in turn confirmed the order of assessment dt. 16/12/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5) Pune [‘Ld. AO’ onwards] for assessment year 2014-15 [‘AY’ onwards]; ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

M/s Nisarg Developers Vs ITO AY: 2014-15 2. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 90 days occurred in instituting the present appeal, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), we deem it fit to condone the same and advanced accordingly.

3.

We have heard the rival submission on the limited issue ex- parte dismissal of appeal by the first appellate authority; and subject to provisions of rule 18 of ‘ITAT Rules’ perused material placed on record. We note that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in construction activity which filed its return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act declaring loss of ₹2,58,144/- was initially processed summarily u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the limited issues viz; (i) low capital gain with respect to sale consideration and (ii) sale consideration of property reported in ITR less than reported in AIR. During the course of assessment it was noticed that in respect of seven property sale transactions entered by the assessee the sale consideration was adopted less than the stamp duty valuation of the ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4

M/s Nisarg Developers Vs ITO AY: 2014-15 property. The difference of such sale consideration was confronted to the assessee and in the event of its failure to substantiate the lower value the difference was added to total income u/s 43CA of the Act and framed the assessment accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved assessee instituted an appeal against such assessment before Ld. NFAC on 02/02/2017 wherein the first appellate authority provided as many as six opportunities of hearing to the assessee right from February, 2020 till February, 2024, much of which fell during the subsistence of COVID-19 pandemic hence unattended, which resulted into ex-parte dismissal of appeal by the Ld. NFAC.

5.

However, the affiliate dt. 11/09/2024 executed & filed by the assessee explaining the reasons of delay occurred in instituting the present appeal and reasons behind his non-compliance before first appellate authority capable of suggesting that such non-compliance was accidental & undeliberate. After vouching the reasons behind such accidental & undeliberate non-compliance, in the larger interest of justice we are of the view that the assessee for sufficient reasons prevented from representing himself before Ld. NFAC. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

M/s Nisarg Developers Vs ITO AY: 2014-15 6. Relying on Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ (2003) 262 ITR 377 (Pat)’, we are mindful to hold that the appellant assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate his claims therefore any adjudication without such evidential documents would be violative of principle of natural justice and rendered itself irregular, thus deserving to be set-aside. In the event and in view of the aforestated discussion we deem it proper to accord one more opportunity to the assessee to place evidential material before the Ld. NFAC. In view hereof, without commenting on merits, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matters back to the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the subject matter a fresh in accordance with law after providing three effective opportunities to the appellant assessee.

7.

The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Tuesday 01st day of October 2024.

More judgments on Section 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →