SMT NAYANA D NIMKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 706/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh disposal of the issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was assessed at a higher total income by the AO, who disallowed expenses claimed by the assessee as co-seller on property sale. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine without deciding the issues on merits. The propriety of disallowing expenses claimed by a co-seller on property sale.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri D.R. Barve
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 24.06.2024

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.02.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from Salary, House Property, Business/Profession, Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,14,07,360/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 31.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.2,36,75,693/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the expenses amounting to Rs.22,68,333/- shown by the assessee as co-seller on account of sale of property at Mumbai.

3.

Aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who after reproducing the remand report of the AO chose to dismiss the appeal in limine without discussing anything on merits.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find the ld. CIT(A) without discussing anything on merits of the controversy of the addition made on account of sale of property, simply dismissed the appeal in limine, which is contrary to settled position of law. It is a trite law that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the merits of the issues in appeal, even in the case of an ex-parte order.

In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal of the issues in accordance with law. We order accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of June, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →