Smt. Snehlata Rakesh Chandak, Panchmahal V. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction The ITO, Ward-2, Godhra

ITA 209/AHD/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Snehlata Rakesh Chandak against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs.8,36,242 to the assessee's income under 'Income from House Property' for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on the gross rent received, which the Assessing Officer adjusted under section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte during the COVID-19 pandemic, preventing her from attending hearings or preparing necessary details, and thus requested a re-hearing with the opportunity to present additional evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129307 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 44AD; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

ITA No.209/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.209/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Snehlata Rakesh Chandak, 19/B, Tirth Duplex, Godhra Road, Halol, Panchmahal – 389 350. [PAN – AEHPC 2443 L] Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, (Present Jurisdiction – Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AR Revenue by Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 06.06.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 09.06.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an order under section 250 of the Act ex-parte confirming the order of the Ld. AO of making an addition of Rs.8,36,242/-. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of making an adjustment of Rs.8,36,242/- under section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of making an addition of Rs.8,36,242/- to the “income from House Property” on the erroneous ground that the appellant has earned gross rent amounting to Rs.11,94,632/-, hence, the appellant should have declared 70% of it as “Income from House Property””. 3. The assessee is an individual carrying on business of renting of property. The assessee filed her return of income on 14.07.2017 declaring income from business amounting to Rs.4,55,217/- under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on total gross receipts of Rs.11,94,632/-. The income declared under Section 44AD is 38.11% (Rs.4,55,217/- divided by Rs.11,94,632/-) which is more than the minimum percentage ITA No.209/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 prescribed under the said section. The gross receipt of Rs.11,94,632/- is of renting business on which TDS has been deducted under Section 194IB of the Act. The CPC Bangalore observed that the receipts on which TDS has been deducted under Section 194IB of the Act, the assessee should have been declared such receipt as “Income from House Property” as her income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made adjustment of Rs.8,36,242/- (70% of rent income amounting to Rs.11,94,632/- after standard deduction of 30% on which tax has been deducted under Section 194IB of the Act) as “income from House Property”. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 03.04.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and in fact the case was fixed for hearing during Covid period and, therefore, the assessee could not attend the hearings or prepare the details to file before the CIT(A.) The CIT(A) has not passed any order on merit and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing as well as the assessee be allowed to file the additional evidences for which application for additional evidence has been filed before the Tribunal and after taking cognisance of the same the CIT(A) should decide the matter on merit. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A) due to Covid period and was not having sufficient time to file the additional evidences. The order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and the CIT(A) has not commented or given any reason on merit for the issues contested therein. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A). After taking cognisance of the additional evidence, which are filed before the Tribunal, the CIT(A) shall decide the issue contested therein on merit as per law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. ITA No.209/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 9 th June, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 9 th day of June, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad