JIGISHU ROHIT VOHRA, MUMBAI V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-34(1) , MUMBAI

ITA 2884/MUM/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jigishu Rohit Vohra against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 24,01,411 claimed by the assessee as the cost of improvement under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was initially made by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee contended that his adjournment request was not considered by the CIT(A), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299279 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 54; 143(3); 250; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT A N o. 2 88 4/ Mu m /20 22 (As se ss me nt Y ea r: 20 17- 18 ) Jigishu Rohit Vohra Plot No. 1301, Panchtantra Heights CHSL, Off. Yard Road, Near Joggers Park, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 061 Vs. Asst. CIT-34(1) Mumbai PA N/ GI R No . (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Paya Dhedia Respondent by : Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni Dat e of H ea ri ng : 02.01.2023 Dat e of P ro no un ce me nt : 09.01.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has challenged the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC without considering the adjournment request filed by the assessee, in disallowing an amount of Rs.24,01,411/- being cost of improvement. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the impugned year dated 30.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs.1,04,42,170/-. The assessee’s case 2 ITA No. 2 8 8 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 ) Jigishu Rohit Vohra vs. Asst. CIT was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed dated 24.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs.1,28,43,582/-, where the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) has made disallowance on cost of improvement, amounting to Rs.24,01,411/-, claimed by the assessee u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act. 4. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) on the impugned disallowance made by the A.O. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has only undertaken repair and renovation of the existing house and that there was no cost of acquiring new residential house property as alleged by the assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AR brought our attention to the adjournment petition filed by the assessee dated 14.07.2022 before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further contended that the said adjournment petition filed before the ld. CIT(A) was not considered and was rather considered as written submission filed in response to the notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. The ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the assessee’s case before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, had nothing to controvert the same and had solely relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3 ITA No. 2 8 8 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 ) Jigishu Rohit Vohra vs. Asst. CIT 9. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the assessee has filed an application for adjournment dated 14.07.2022 before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, seeking for adjournment for the purpose of collating of material from multiple source and had requested for further time to present the assessee’s case. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has stated in para 4 of his order that the assessee has filed written submission, which was controverted by the ld. AR that no such submission was filed as the assessee’s request for adjournment was refused. 11. On perusal of the available material on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC without any delay and to furnish all the documentary evidences to substantiate the claim of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide this appeal by considering the submissions of the assessee and to decide the case on merits. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 09.01.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS 4 ITA No. 2 8 8 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 ) Jigishu Rohit Vohra vs. Asst. CIT Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai