Shri Gopi Kishan Pandey, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Kanpur

ITA 31/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2175 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SWARN SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 50C; 143(2)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.31/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2009-2010 Shri Gopi Kishan Pandey, 133/179, O-Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. PAN:AAOPP3801C Vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN: V.P. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dated 01/03/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the addition which the Assessing Officer has made by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The assessee, besides taking ground on merits, has also taken a ground vide ground No. 4 that learned CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and Assessing Officer, after invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, has made the addition. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that notice u/s 148 Appellant by Shri Swarn Singh, C.A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 28/07/2022 I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 2 was issued on 28/03/2013 and in response, the advocate of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer on 03/05/2013 and after that on 21/03/2014, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and on 29/03/2014 itself the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. It was submitted that after giving notice for reopening of the case, the Assessing Officer did not take any action until 21/03/2014 and the case was attended by advocate of the assessee on 24/03/2014 and case was adjourned to 25/03/2014. It was submitted that assessee was out of station after that date and Assessing Officer passed the order on 29/03/2014 without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. In this respect our attention was invited to paper book pages 1 to 3 where copy of order sheet of Assessing Officer and evidence of assessee being out of station in the last days of March, 2014, was placed. It was submitted that the appeal was filed before learned CIT(A) and the valuation report was filed before him but learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that there is no provision in the Act requiring CIT(A) to make a reference to D.V.O. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the case has not been decided on merits either by the Assessing Officer or by learned CIT(A). It was prayed that therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so that he can explain his case to the Assessing Officer. 4. Learned D. R., on the other hand, though supported the orders of the authorities below but fairly agreed that the merits of the case have not been examined by either of the parties, therefore, the case may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is a fact that on 28/03/2013, the notice u/s 148 was issued and then on 21/03/2014, notice u/s 143(2) was issued. I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 3 Between the period 22/03/2014 to 27/03/2014 the assessee was out of station and therefore, the case could not be explained to the Assessing Officer. On 29/03/2014 itself the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee filed the valuation report but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee did not file the valuation report before Assessing Officer nor did he request the Assessing Officer to obtain report from D.V.O. The learned CIT(A) further held that there is no provision in the Act available to the CIT(A) to make a reference to the D.V.O. and hence he dismissed the appeal. We find that the assessee did not get proper opportunity to explain his case before the authorities below and since the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 28/07/2022) Sd/. Sd/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ( A. D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President Dated:28/07/2022 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Assistant Registrar