Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.271/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Anil Rajaram Buchde, V The Assistant Ap Marunji, S.No.32, Tal. s Commissioner of Income Mulshi, Near Kirti Classique, Tax, Circle-2, Pune. Pune – 411057. PAN: BHKPB4666F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 11/06/2024 Date of pronouncement /06/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)[NFAC] dated 19.12.2023 for the A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act, it be held that the order passed by First Appellate Authority, without providing any opportunity of being heard, is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the express directions issued by the Hon'ble Income-tax Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]
Appellate Tribunal. The order so passed be set aside. Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. It is prayed that it be field that the Appellant deserves to be awarded costs and appropriate directions may be issued in this regard.
Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions arid scheme of the Act it be held that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appeal filed by the Appellant against order u/s. 154 of the Act is redundant. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 and 2 anti on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the amount of Short Term Capital Gains offered to tax during the AY 2014-15 in its return of income deserves to be reduced by Rs. 2,87,15,000/-. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Findings &Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.In this case, for A.Y.2014-15, ITAT in ITA No.864/PUN/2023 arising out of CIT(A)-Pune’s order, dated 31.05.2023, which in turn emanated from order u/sec.154 of the Act, had held as under: “4. Mr. Khandelwal vehemently submitted during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has simply brushed aside the assessee’s
2 Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]
rectification pleadings thereby holding that he had already taken recourse to the settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 instead having adjudicated the corresponding issues on merits. He next submitted that the assessee’s limited prayer at this stage seeks directions to the CIT(A) for appropriate adjudication of the matter u.sec.250(6) of the Act which has nowhere been done in the impugned former round.
Mr. Murkunde could hardly dispute that the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion has nowhere established the clear cut nexus between the assessee’s alleged settlement petition dealing with the very issue under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 vis-à- vis relief claimed u/sec.154 rectification before us. We wish to clarify that the assessee’s stand before us is that he had sought to rectify the relevant apparent mistakes in the computation which nowhere formed part of the settlement under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’s settlement. Faced with the situation and without going into the merits of the issue, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.”
Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated by ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. However, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has not provided any opportunity to the assessee during these fresh proceedings. It is also observed that though ITAT had directed ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh, ld.CIT(A) has merely copied the earlier order. The ld.CIT(A) had not given any finding whether the proceedings u/sec.154 were the same proceedings for which assessee has filed
3 Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]
declaration under DTVSV. Before us, ld.Authorised Representative reiterated his stand that assessee had filed DTVSV declaration with reference to order u/s.143(3) for A.Y.2014-15 in which issues were different and there is no DTVSV with reference to order u/sec.154 of the Act. Ld.ITAT had directed ld.CIT(A) to verify all these facts and adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. However, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) has not verified any of these facts. Therefore, the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] is set-aside for denovo adjudication. We direct the Ld.CIT(A) to verify all the facts and adjudicate grounds of appeal on merit, after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall provide all the necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2024. (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 11th June, 2024/ SGR*
4 Anil Rajaram Buchde [A]
आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant. 1. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड"फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.