Umesh Dhondiram Shinde, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

ITA 1351/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1125 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1351/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Umesh Dhondiram Shinde, Jogeshwari Builders, Near Gokhale College, Subhash Road, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416001. PAN : ACGPS3218J Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Kolhapur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 02.07.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in disallowing of u/s 40(a)(ia) at Rs. 2,29,509/-. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in disallowing the provision of U/s Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 29.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2022 ITA No.1351/PUN/2019 2 23(4)(a) and disallowing of Rs. 9,56,344/- in respect of all the properties including self occupied property. 3) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, 1961. 4) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add to any of the above grounds of appeal and / or take any additional ground of appeal, if necessary.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of Contractors, Builders and Land Developers. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.62,11,002/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kolhapur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.73,99,000/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,29,509/-, addition on account of income from house property u/s 23(1) r.w.s. 23(4) of Rs.9,56,344/- and addition on account of disallowance of interest on late payment of TDS of Rs.2,142/-. ITA No.1351/PUN/2019 3 4. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhay P. Kalbhor vs. DCIT in ITA No.1469/PUN/2002 for assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we decide the issue in the present appeal on merits after hearing the ld. CIT-DR. 7. We heard ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Now, the law is settled to the extent that the ld. CIT(A) is bound to dispose of the appeal on merit even in the case of ex-parte orders. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. ITA No.1351/PUN/2019 4 8. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) should go into to the merits of the issue in appeal and dispose the appeal. Since the ld. CIT(A) had not disposed of the matter on merits, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits based on the material available on record. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30 th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th June, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Kolhapur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.