CHEERAN JOSE SHUNSON,THRISSUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

ITA 659/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Cheeran Jose Shunson against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The appellant, engaged in the business of dealing in oil, had filed a return declaring a total income significantly lower than what was assessed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Guruvayur. The ITO made a substantial addition to the appellant's income, citing discrepancies related to the stamp duty valuation under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision without adequately addressing the appellant's explanations or the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not stated the points for determination nor provided reasons for the decision, leading to the remand of the case for a thorough re-examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23358 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM ITA No. 659/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cheeran Jose Shunson .......... Appellant Cheeran House, Kottapadi Thrissur 680505 [PAN: DPAPS4426C] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1 & TPS, Guruvayoor, Thrissur Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 31.07.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in oil. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 29.12.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,92,920/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income 2 ITA No. 659/Coch/2023 Cheeran Jose Shunson Tax Officer, Ward -1, Guruvayur (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 77,90,320/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 69,97,400/- being the differential amount between the apparent consideration and the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty purposes, supposedly u/s. 50C of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 5. On a mere reading of the assessment order it is not clear whether the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the reasons for lower apparent consideration. Furthermore, before the learned CIT(A) the appellant had explained the reasons for the lower fair market value. The CIT(A) neither dealt with the explanation offered during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) nor passed the order on merits in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) is expected to state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision. In the present case the CIT(A) has not sated the points for determination. He simply 3 ITA No. 659/Coch/2023 Cheeran Jose Shunson confirmed the action of the AO without giving any reasons for the decision. 6. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 28th January, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 659/Coch/2023 Cheeran Jose Shunson Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "