NARENDRA KANTILAL BANTHIA ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of the
CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated
25.05.2023 for the assessment year 2015-16.
At the outset, we find that the ld.CIT(A) while passing the
ex-parte order had not adjudicated the issues raised in appeal on merits, instead the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of
prosecution of appeal with regard to ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
However, with respect to ground No.2 raised before him, the ld.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by directing AO to give benefit of
2 ITA No.1319/PUN/2023
cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section u/s.55(2)(b)(ii) of
the Act. The ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee before the
Tribunal are that the lands sold were agricultural lands and
therefore, not liable to any capital gain as per exceptions contained
in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that addition
made by the AO requires to be deleted.
When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of
the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing
the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to
dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.
We find that the approach of the ld.CIT(A) is totally
unreasonable and unjustified. The CIT(A) fell in serious error by
not adjudicating the issues in appeal on merits. The settled
positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by
adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In the present
case, the CIT(A) had fell into serious error by not disposing of the
appeal on merits. The findings of the CIT(A) are not based on the
material on record, which means that the CIT(A) had not gone into
the merits of the issue in appeal. Albeit, with respect to ground
No.2 raised before the CIT(A), he allowed the benefit of cost of
acquisition but did not dispose of the ground of appeal on merits
3 ITA No.1319/PUN/2023
raised before him challenging the addition made by the AO under
the head “capital gains”. Therefore, considering the facts in entirety,
we vacate the finding of the CIT(A). In the circumstances, we
remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct to
dispose of the appeals on merits in accordance with law after
affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed
for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 31st day of January, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 31st January, 2024. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A” Bench, Pune गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
4 ITA No.1319/PUN/2023
Date 1. Draft dictated on 31-01-2024 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 31-01-2024 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.
