SALIM AHMED MOHAMED SAFI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), BHARUCH

िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mukund K Rao, C.A राज�व क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 12/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’ for short] dated 22.12.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 27.12.2019.

raised by assessee are as follows: “The Appellant prays and appeals that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts upholding additions / disallowances made by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bharuch u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays and appeals that the Ld. A.O Ward-1(4) Bharuch has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions:

1. Addition of Rs.23,92,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain be quashed. This addition has been made disregarding the provisions of section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Addition of Rs.99,64,400/- under section 50C of the Income Tax Act be quashed. This addition has been made even after the appellant requested for valuation by the Department Valuation Officer (DVO).

3. Addition of Rs.4,02,820/- on account of income from other sources be quashed.

Salim Ahmed Mohamed Safi Patel This is the agricultural income disclosed by the appellant in his return of income. The Ld. A.O has disregarded agricultural income stating that land records have not been produced despite the fact that the land sold and another land purchased during the year under review were itself agricultural lands.

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without considering the materials available before him by way of statement of facts as well as assessment order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee went outside India at the time when the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has issued the notice therefore assessee could not make compliance of notice of hearing during the appellate stage. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that during assessment stage, the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (‘DVO’ for short) and did not take valuation report from DVO. Therefore, Ld. Counsel prays the Bench that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that if the assessee was not in India at the time when the appellate proceedings were going on then in that situation it is not the mistake of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) to pass ex parte order. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue pointed out that if the matter is to be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer then assessee may be instructed to submit the relevant documents and evidences before Assessing Officer and be active during de novo assessment proceedings. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order without considering the statement of facts and the material available in the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) is not as per the mandate of the provisions Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, order passed by the NFAC/ Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order. Moreover, the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter to DVO while passing assessment order. Hence, we set aside the order of Salim Ahmed Mohamed Safi Patel NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to refer the matter to Valuation Officer and then adjudicate the issue in question in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to submit relevant documents and evidences as required by the Assessing Officer as and when called for in de novo assessment proceedings. Therefore, statistical purposes the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed.