JAYENDRA GOPALRAO SARDESAI,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1107/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 February 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT rejected the adjournment application but, considering the assessee's health and lack of documentary evidence, remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is permitted to file evidence in support of their claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen with a kidney disease, failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A), leading to best judgment assessment and additions. The assessee sought an adjournment before the ITAT due to health reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be adjourned due to the assessee's health condition and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration given the lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-08-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee filed adjournment application dated 20-02-2024 stating that he is a senior citizen suffering from kidney disease requiring him frequent hospitalization. Further, he stated doctor advised him bed rest for atleast two weeks and is unable to travel out of Kolhapur to appoint counsel to represent his case before the ITAT, Pune Benches. We note that on perusal of record that this appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 02-11-2023 and the same has been adjourned till today, from time to time on the request of assessee. Further, on perusal of assessment order, we note that the assessment was completed to the best judgment of AO u/s. 144 of the Act in the absence of any representation of assessee. We note that there was no compliance from the assessee to the show cause notice issued by the AO, wherein, the AO clearly held the same, vide para 7 of the assessment order. The AO proceeded to add an amount on account of capital gain to the tune of Rs.1,88,54,488/- and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,92,48,588/- as against the returned of income of Rs.3,94,050/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi, but however, no response from the assessee to the multiple opportunities granted by the CIT(A) which is evident from para 6.4 of the impugned order. We find since the addition on account of capital gain, which requires filing of relevant documents in support of the grounds raised before this Tribunal, but however, no documentary evidences filed before both the authorities below including this Tribunal. Taking into account the health emergency of the assessee, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO in the interest of justice. The ld. DR reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration. Thus, the adjournment application dated 20-02-2024 is rejected and taking into account the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

3.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →