RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 23/11/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,15,00,000/- made by Ld. AO in respect of sale of immovable property even when no immovable property was sold by the appellant and he was only a GPA holder. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

on or before the disposal of the same.”

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that in this case the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act. On the basis of AIR/CIB information and the fact that the assessee has not filed his return of income, the AO held that the amount of Rs. 3,15,00,000/- had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and the reasons were recorded and notice under section 148 dt. 31/03/2016 was issued to the assessee after getting approval from Pr. CIT, Panchkula and served upon the assessee through affixture as ordinary service was not possible. There was however no compliance on the part of the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) and a show cause under section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains, the amount so unexplained is added to the income of the assessee and the assessed income was accordingly determined at Rs. 3,15,00,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However as per the impugned order inspite of various opportunities provided to the assessee and in absence of any written submission or supporting evidences concerning the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Against the said findings and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that no written submissions or supporting evidence have been filed during the appellate proceedings is fairly incorrect. It was submitted that the written submissions were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which are contained at page 1 to 21 of the assessee’s paper book. Further the assessee also moved an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence and which finds place at page 22 to 107 of the assessee’s paper book. It was further submitted that another written submission were filed on 08/05/2023 and 22/06/2023 which find place at page 116 to 133 of the assessee’s paper book. It was submitted that inspite of the written submissions and the evidence placed on record, the Ld. CIT(A) has gone ahead and passed an ex-parte order without deciding on the merits of the case.

7. It was further submitted that the assessee was a general Power of Attorney of Shri Harish Gupta and Mrs. Deepti Gupta, the actual owners of House no. 2036, Sector 15C, Chandigarh. It was submitted that the AO basis AIR information received from the office of registering authority has issued the notice under section 148 without verifying the details of the owners which find duly mention in the registered sale deed. It was submitted that the actual owners namely Shri Harish Gupta and Mrs. Deepti Gupta have filed their ITR for A.Y. 2009-10 and have declared capital gains on the sale of the subject house property. It was submitted that AO has failed to appreciate the vital fact that the assessee was only General Power of Attorney holder and the actual owners were Shir Harish Gupta and Mrs. Deepti Gupta who have duly disclosed the capital gains in their respective return of income. It was submitted that all these details were duly mentioned in the registered sale deed and the assessee has also transferred total sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed to Shri Harish Gupta and Smt. Deepti Gupta. It was further submitted that all these documents in terms of purchase deed and sale deed, ITR of Shri Harish Gupta and Mrs. Deepti Gupta, their Affidavit, and copy of the bank statement have been duly submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences which he has failed to consider. It was further submitted that the assessee has since shifted to Delhi as evident from the copy of the ITR filed for A.Y 2015-16 and 2016-17 and inspite of that the AO i.e; ITO Panchkula has assume jurisdiction and passed the assessment order. It was submitted that it is clear case where the assessee has been unnecessarily penalized by issuing huge demand by the ITO Panchkula and recovery notices have been issued by TRO, Panchkula. It was submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice/ order passed by the AO and only came to know about the passing of the said order when the letter dt. 02/07/2019 was issued by the TRO Panchkula. It was submitted that thereafter the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has also failed to consider the necessary submission and the evidence placed on record. It was accordingly submitted that matter may be set aside to the file of the AO to examine all these details after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR is heard who has submitted that the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, it was fairly submitted that since there is no finding which has been recorded on the merits of the case by either of the authorities, it would be appropriate that the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO.

9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Admittedly, there is no finding on the merits of the case and as submitted by both the parties, it would be necessary that the AO examine the matter and record his findings on merits of the case. In view of the same, we hereby set-aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the matter a fresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the AO/make the necessary representation as so advised and shall ensure in timely completion of the proceedings. All the contentions raised before us are left open and the assessee is at liberty to raise the same as well as submit the necessary documentation in support thereof before the AO who shall examine the same and record his findings as per law.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/11/2024 परेश म. जोशी िव"म िसंह यादव (PARESH M. JOSHI) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER