Shri Nishit Pravin Patel, Vadodara V. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

ITA 3477/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6359 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET BAKSHI
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA(TP) NO. 3477/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 SHRI NISHIT PRAVIN PATEL A-301, SAFALYA PARK LANE NEW ALKAPURI B/H. AKASHVANI, GOTRI SEVASI ROAD VADODARA 390 021. PAN : AEPP 4732 N VS ACIT (INTL. TAXATION)-II VADODA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANKET BAKSHI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/01/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/01/2018 PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 5.11.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13. 3. IT EMERGES OUT FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS FOR A SUM OF RS.88,11,220/- ON27. 7.2012 WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AND CLAIMED BEN EFIT OF SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BENEFI T IS AVAILABLE TO ONLY ONE FLAT AND NOT FOR BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL FLATS. H E ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.44,05,610/-. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT( A) DISMISSED THE ITA NO. 3477 /AHD/2016 - 2 - APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING A BRIEF DISCUSS ION, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE GROUND RAISED AND STATEMENT OF FACTS AVAILABLE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.44,05,6 10/-. I FIND NO REBUTTAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE APPEAL MEMO NOR HAS FI LED SUBSEQUENTLY DESPITE OF NUMBER OF NOTICES ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREIN CONFIRMED. 4. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT BEFORE ADJUDICAT ION OF APPEAL, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (A) LISTED THESE APPEA LS FOR HEARING ON FIVE OCCASIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON FOUR OCCASIONS AND EVEN DID NOT TURN UP ON THE L AST OCCASION. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED APPEAL WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE. 5. SUB-SUBSECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 CONTEMPLATES T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD STATE POINTS IN DISPUTE, AND THEREAFTER RECOR D REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONCLUSIONS ON THOSE POINTS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT SUGGESTS THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT IN COHERENCE WITH P OSITION OF LAW CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND APPEAL IS RESTORED TO FI LE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 6. IN ORDER TO AVOID FUTURE NON-COMPLIANCE AT THE E ND OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO AP PEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM RECEIPT OF THIS ORD ER AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR TAKING UP THESE APPEALS. THE LD.CI T(A) SHALL FIX THE DATE ITA NO. 3477 /AHD/2016 - 3 - OF HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SO TH AT GRIEVANCE OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ATTENDING HEARIN G COULD BE AVOIDED. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 01/01/2018