SREENU SIDDAIAH BEJADI, MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

ITA 101/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld additions made by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2015-16. The additions included cash credits, trade receivables, and discrepancies in property valuation. The appellant argued that he did not receive electronic notices under the New Faceless Assessment Scheme, which led to non-representation during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the matter on merit and had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the appellant's claims of not receiving the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130108 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 143(3); 143(2); 264

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No.101/Mum/2023 Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 101/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Flat No. 603, F Wing, Xanadu Chs, Prathmesh Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West 400053 Vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AEOPB1174L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 19.10.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in upholding the addition made by the assessing officer without appreciating the fact that none of his electronic notices under the New Faceless Assessment Scheme of the Government were reached to the appellant for filing the timely responses who already waited for more than 3 years earlier for hearing to commence under erstwhile physical hearing mode. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant to represent his case and simply dismissing the following grounds before him: P a g e | 2 ITA No.101/Mum/2023 Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Vs. CIT(A) NFAC a) The Learned Assessing officer has erred in passing an order which is bad in law by directing the additions as we had submitted confirmations from relatives. However, A.O. had not considered it. b) The Learned Assessing officer has erred in passing an order which is bad in law by directing the additions as he mistakenly added trade receivable received back during the year. c) The Learned Assessing officer has erred in passing an order which is bad in law by directing the additions as he mistakenly considered Stamp Duty Value of the property as its Fair Value. However actual value is much lesser than the Ready Reckoner Value. 3. The appellant pleads to remand back the case and giving directions to the Learned Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) for making the fresh assessment or revision of the order in terms of Section 264 and other provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. The appellant carves to reserve the right to modify, alter, amend or/and add grounds of appeal on proceedings of the case.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,54,000/- was filed on 17.03.2016. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.08.2016. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 26.12.2017 and total income was determined at Rs.54,15,000/- after making following additions: “(a) Cash credit u/s 68 for amount received from the family member Rs.18,00,000/- (b) Addition u/s 269T of the Act pertaining to trade receivable during the year of Rs.2,25,000/- (b) Addition of Rs.30,36,000/- u/s 56(2)(7)(b)(ii) being different of purchase consideration as per agreement and stamp duty. “ 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non- prosecution since during the course of appellate proceedings neither the assessee attended nor submitted any written submission. 4. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and the same was not adjudicated on merit. In this regard, we have perused the written submission made by the assessee in the statement of facts reporting P a g e | 3 ITA No.101/Mum/2023 Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Vs. CIT(A) NFAC that he has not received any notice of hearing on email dated 08.01.2021, 14.09.2021, 11.03.2022 and 07.10.2022 as referred by the ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order. The assessee categorically stated that none of these electronic notice were delivered to him and he was also not aware of these notices. Therefore, no reply and response was made during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The assesse has provided email address on the form no. 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) as [e-mail]. The ld. CIT(A) has not stated in the appellate order the email address on which the notices of hearing were sent. We have perused Sec. 250(6) of the I.T. Act which contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. Even the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merit after taking into consideration the material available in the assessment record. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing another fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure and recommunicate the email id in case of the email id reported in the form no. 35 is not correct. Therefore, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Aby T Varkey) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 27.03.2023 Rohit: PS P a g e | 4 ITA No.101/Mum/2023 Sreenu Siddaiah Bejadi Vs. CIT(A) NFAC आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.