M/S EDIFICE PROPERTIES PVT LTD. , MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1625/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary grievances included the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and issues related to the addition of Rs. 12.97 crores as income, which the assessee argued had already been taxed in a different assessment year. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in how the CIT(A) handled the appeal, particularly the failure to consider the assessee's submissions and the inappropriate rejection of adjournment requests during the COVID-19 period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123455 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1625/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd., 208, Parvati Industrial Estate, Sunwill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai. PAN No. AABCE 5900 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Hiro Rai Revenue by : Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 30/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 30/08/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 48, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds: 1) The order passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2) The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3) The assessee was prevented on account of reasonable cause in making detailed submission before Hon'ble CIT(A) and thus dismissal of appeal to be set aside for providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after considering the submission of assessee. 4) The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 crores is illegal, invalid 5) The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year 2015-16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014 double addition of the receipts considered and asse Asstt. Year 2015 6) The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as shown in the return of income at Rs.8,54,871/ 7) The learned A.O. and CIT( transfer of property during the Asst. Year 2014 levy tax on capital gain at Rs. 12.97 crores. 8) The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudi interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were issued in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He further submitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying before the Ld. CIT(A) issues in dispute may restored back to the deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, objected and submitted that the first three dates of the M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after considering the submission of assessee. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 crores is illegal, invalid and bad in law. The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year 16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014 double addition of the receipts considered and asse Asstt. Year 2015-16. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as shown in the return of income at Rs.8,54,871/-. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) erred in holding that there is transfer of property during the Asst. Year 2014-15 in order to levy tax on capital gain at Rs. 12.97 crores. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudi interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee into consideration the submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He mitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying before the Ld. CIT(A) , the order of ld CIT(A) might be set aside and may restored back to the file of deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, objected and submitted that the first three dates of the M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 opportunity of being heard and to decide appeal after The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 12.97 The evidence on record indicates that sale proceeds of property have been subjected tax in the case of assessee in Asst. Year 16 and confirmation of addition in Asst. Year 2014-15 is double addition of the receipts considered and assessed in The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have accepted the loss as A) erred in holding that there is 15 in order to The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A. 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that qua the assessee into consideration the submission of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel referred to para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the notices except notice dated 06.02.2023 were in the Covid period and therefore could not be complied. He mitted that on 06.02.2023, the assessee applied for adjournment which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he submitted that there being a reasonable cause for not complying might be set aside and file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, objected and submitted that the first three dates of the notices i.e. 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 w period and for those dates, demonstrated by the assessee 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the iss dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first dates 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 been made by the assessee. T non-compliance was correct, because Covid restriction were imposed from 20 March,2020 only. As CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable cause and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , and time of the Income have been used for justice delivery in other cases. circumstances, we feel it appropriate to which the assessee shall within 30 days of receipt of this order cost by the assessee, t matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assesse directed to co-operate and submit necessary document in support M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020 were before the Covid period and for those dates, no reasonable cause has been demonstrated by the assessee for non-compliance of the notices. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the iss dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first dates 20.02.2019; 03.12.2019; and 20.02.2020, no compliance has by the assessee. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that was on account of Covid period is not found to be , because Covid restriction were imposed from 20 As the assessee has not complied before the Ld. CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , ime of the Income-tax Authority has been wasted, which could have been used for justice delivery in other cases. circumstances, we feel it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. which the assessee shall pay into Prime Minister Relief in 30 days of receipt of this order. Subject to the payme cost by the assessee, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assesse operate and submit necessary document in support M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 ere before the Covid no reasonable cause has been compliance of the notices. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that on first three no compliance has he contention of the Ld. Counsel that on account of Covid period is not found to be , because Covid restriction were imposed from 20 th the assessee has not complied before the Ld. CIT(A) on all three dates without any reasonable and sufficient and due to noncompliant behavior of the assessee , energy tax Authority has been wasted, which could have been used for justice delivery in other cases. In the cost of Rs.5,000/- into Prime Minister Relief Fund, ubject to the payment of the he order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is also operate and submit necessary document in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating upon the other grounds raised on merit. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/08/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating upon the other grounds raised on merit. n the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/08/2023. Sd/- Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Edifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1625/M/2023 of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) at earliest. Since the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. We are not adjudicating n the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /08/2023. Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai