DREAMS BELLE VUE,PUNE V. ITO WARD 2 (1), PUNE

ITA 1157/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Dreams Belle Vue, an Association of Persons (AOP), against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which pertained to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2014-15. The primary issue was the non-compliance of the assessee in responding to notices and the subsequent dismissal of their appeals for non-prosecution. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merits but dismissed them due to non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance was not deliberate but due to the non-operational status of their email domain post-COVID-19, which hindered the receipt of notices. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a decision on merits and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781625 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another (118 ITR 461), M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIDYA RATAN KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Onus to prove; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 139

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2014-15 Dreams Belle Vue, 3rd Floor, City Mall, University Road, Ganeshkind, Maharashtra-411007, PAN : AAAAD9013B Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date of hearing : 01-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-09-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders dated 15.02.2024 and 23.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 383 and 375 days respectively in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit along with application explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional or deliberate but has occurred for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025, AYs 2016-17 & 2014-15 ITA No. 1157/PUN/2025, AY 2016-17 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Learned AO erred in law and on facts in assessing the appellant's income at Rs. 3,42,72,240 as against Nil income as declared in the Income Tax Return. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Learned AO failed to take cognizance of the AOP agreement between Mr. Mulay, the Landowner & Dreams Raka Associates (AOP) wherein it is clearly stated that revenue will be shared in the Ratio of 60% to Dreams Raka Associates and 40% to Land Owner and hence the said alleged Income of Rs 3.42 Crores (allegedly reflected in 26AS of the appellant) is already taxed respectively in the hands of the members of the AOP and hence, should not be taxed again in the hands of Appellant Company. 2. Learned CIT(NFAC), erred in outrightly dismissing the grounds/contentions raised by the assessee for lack of submissions made without addressing the grounds raised by the appellant, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. The Appellant submits that credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 3,42,744 ought to be granted either to the Appellant AOP or, in the alternative, to the respective members who have duly offered the corresponding income in their individual returns of income. 4. The Appellant craves to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of grounds of appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an Association of Person (AOP) working in the name and style of “Dreams Belle Vue” engaged in a single residential project located at the Bavdhan area of Pune. The said project completed in the year 2018. For AY 2016-17, the assessee did not file its income tax return within due date as per the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). As per information available, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the FY 2015- 16, the assessee entered into transaction of transfer of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.3,42,72,240/-. However, on verification of the same it was seen that no return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17. No tax on the income/capital gain earned on account of sale of immovable property was paid by the assessee. Consequently, there were reasons to believe that the amount of Rs.3,42,72,240/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2021. The assessee did not comply to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on various dates but the assessee did not furnish any justification for non disclosure of the income under the head income from capital gains, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025, AYs 2016-17 & 2014-15 followed by the issue of show cause notice(s) but no compliance was received from the end of the assessee within the stipulated date and time allowed. Thereafter, on becoming aware of the initiation of reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished written submissions/certain documents on 29.03.2022 and also filed income tax return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022. The Ld. AO however rejected the same and proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 31.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.3,42,72,240/- on account of income from capital gains. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in his appellate order observed that the assessee failed to comply with the various notices of hearing issued by his office and has not furnished any explanation and submission/details or documents in respect of its claim. He therefore proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte qua assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant vide hearing notices dated 13.05.2022, 29.11.2023, 21.12.2023 and 18.01.2024. However there is no compliance. The appellant has thus failed to avail the opportunities provided by this office to furnish explanation/ submission in support of its contentions. 4.2 As has been brought out above, it is evident that the appellant is not interested in filing any details during the appellate proceedings and to avail the opportunity under the principle of natural justice. As many as four notices were issued through ITBA portal as noted above. However, it is a matter of record that no documents or details were submitted by the appellant. 4.3 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477 & 478) that appeal does not mean filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipolvs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. 4.4 This appeal has been filed by the appellant claiming that the action of the Assessing Officer is not supported by facts and laws and that is unjust. In such a situation, it is for the appellant to furnish submissions with relevant evidence(s), case laws, if any, to support the claim. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. In this case, it is the appellant who has made the claim by filing the appeal. However, the appellant has not availed the opportunities provided to file submission/evidence in support of the claim made. In view of the said non- submission of explanation, the appeal is decided on the facts and material available on record assuming that the appellant has nothing to submit in the matter. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025, AYs 2016-17 & 2014-15 4.5 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided many opportunities as enumerated above. However, the appellant has remained non-compliant. No material facts have been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal or to rebut the finding of the AO. 4.6 There remains no doubt that statute has cast upon the appellant duty to explain the source of deposits/income for the assessment year under consideration but in the instant case appellant failed to discharge the above onus. The appellant inspite of being given ample opportunities during appellate proceedings, failed to offer any explanation and documentary evidence. In view of the above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was not deliberate. The notice(s) were sent on the e- mail domain “arcpune.com” which became non-operational post COVID- 19, rendering the connected e-mail ids non-functional. Hence, the e-mails could not be delivered to the assessee which he substantiated by showing the screenshot of the e-mail window. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details/ documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issues raised by the assessee afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee never bothered to make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not make any submission which constrained the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that there was no deliberate non- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025, AYs 2016-17 & 2014-15 compliance but it resulted on account of reasons already mentioned in preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details/ documents before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Perusal of the appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another (supra) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. None-the-less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has passed the order without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the appeal, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits as per fact and law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the correct and active e-mail id to the Department and remain vigilant in accessing the same and appear before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1158/PUN/2025, AY 2014-15 12. Both the sides are unanimous in stating that the facts and the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1158/PUN/2025 for AY 2014-15 are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No. 1157/PUN/2025 for AY 2016-17 except Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025, AYs 2016-17 & 2014-15 for the variance in amounts. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed this appeal of the assessee too for non-prosecution without deciding the issue on merits and thus the finding given by us while adjudicating the appeal in ITA No. 1157/PUN/2025 would mutatis mutandis apply to the appeal in ITA No. 1158/PUN/2025 as well. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1158/PUN/2025 are hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 13. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 (ITA No. 1157/PUN/2025) and AY 2014-15 (ITA No. 1158/PUN/2025) are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th September, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "