AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in affirming the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) dated 26.03.2024, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in violating the principles of natural justice by disposing of the appeal without granting adequate opportunity of being heard, despite requests for adjournment made by the appellant.
3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO, who passed the assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice by not duly considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings.
4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the addition of Rs.1,41,23,292/- made by the Ld. AO without appreciating that complete details in respect of security expenses, electrical expenses and building cost were duly furnished but were not properly considered.
5.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be set aside as the additions have been made without proper verification of documents and evidences, warranting restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication.
6.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal in a summary manner without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby necessitating restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for proper verification and adjudication.
7.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 26.09.2022 declaring total income at 1,91,04,270/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had sold a residential property situated at 250P, Sector 38, Gurgaon for a total consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/-vide two agreements where one part of the property was sold to Mrs. Poonam Kaur Chadha and Mrs. Loveleen Kaur Nayyar, for a consideration of Rs.2,10,00,000/-for which TDS of Rs.2,10,000/- was deducted and with regard to the second part of the property which was sold to Shri S.R. Arora for a consideration of Rs.2,40,00,000/- for which no TDS was deducted. Further, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed a very high cost of construction for which there were various debit entries in his bank accounts which were claimed as expenses by the assessee. The Ld. AO rejected the expenses claimed by the assessee on the ground that these were not supported by documentary evidences, thereby disallowing the same. The Ld. AO, then, passed the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.3,32,27,562/-, after making an addition/disallowance of Rs.1,41,23,292/- being the difference amount in the long-term capital gain offered by the assessee of Rs.61,38,794/- after claiming deduction u/s 48 of the Act of Rs.3,88,61,206/- and that determined by the Ld. AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority who, wide an ex parte order, dated 27.02.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that despite multiple notices issued, the assessee was non-compliant during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the first appellate proceedings for which the Ld. AR contended that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee and, further, the Ld.CIT(A) has also not considered the documentary evidences filed before him which was already there before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the appellate authority. The Ld. DR opposed to the same.
On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from his side. The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate this issue de novo after duly considering the submission of the assessee and the documentary evidences filed in support of his claim. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.