Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
O R D E R
Per Arun Khodpia, AM :
The captioned appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.11.2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, arose from the order u/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 framed by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bilashpur dated 19.11.2018. The grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITA) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.58,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of undisclosed income being capital gain.
2. The appellant craves leave, to add urge, alter, modify or withdraw any ground/s before or at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information through the NMS data found from ITS database of the ITBA System, the appellant had sold an immovable property valued at Rs.58,00,000/-. The appellant has filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2013-14. During the year under consideration, a sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- was received by the assessee according to copy of sale deed executed. As per the copy of sale deed the market value of property as per stamp valuation authority was at Rs.58,00,000/-. Therefore, considering that capital gain has attracted in the hands of the appellant the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. Notices u/s 148 of the Act was issued, however, assessee has not responded to any of such notices neither the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 was filed by the assessee, since, there was no response from the assessee, the assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and culminated on 19.11.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 58,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but again the assessee was found to be not represented. Several notices were issued, and opportunities being granted to the assessee. A chart showing such opportunities and no response by the assessee was shown by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order, the same is extracted as under:
Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks 1. 07.01.2021 22.01.2021 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 2. 05.10.2021 11.10.2021 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 3. 17.03.2022 29.03.2022 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 4. 22.06.2022 27.06.2022 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 5. 06.09.2022 12.09.2022 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 6. 02.11.2022 07.11.2022 Delivery on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received.
With such observation, the Ld. CIT-DR dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “4.1 In view of the above, it appears that the non-appearance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non- compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal.
4.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filling it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court
Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) (38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non- prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received by the appellant and, therefore, the apparent was unable to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, it is the humble request of the assessee that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine.
The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand supported the order of Ld. CIT(A), however, fairly agreed that if the case of the assessee is being restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the department has no objection.
We have heard the rival contention, perused the materials available on record and orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the assessee was non-compliant at both stages, before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), however, since the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) were dismissed in limine on account of non- prosecution, in the interest of justice and as requested and agreed by the parties, without touching the merits of the case, we find it suitable to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue on the merits of the case. We, therefore, in terms of our observation