M/s. RMC Harmony, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 7, Pune

ITA 503/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4082 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.503/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. RMC Harmony, 212, San Mahu Complex, 5 Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. PAN : AAIFR6128G Vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 22.11.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of property development and construction. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 19.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.6,14,88,850/-. Against the said return of income, the Assessee by : Shri P. D. Kudva Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 04.08.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.08.2022 ITA No.503/PUN/2018 2 assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 23.03.2016 at total income of Rs.9,18,63,166/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.3,03,74,316/- on account of distribution of flats among the partners at cost. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the issue in appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) while passing the ex-parte order had not adjudicated the issue raised in appeal on merits, instead the ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal is not admitted for want of prosecution of appeal. This approach of the ld. CIT(A) is totally unreasonable and unjustified. The ld. CIT(A) fell in serious error by not admitting the appeal for non-prosecution. The settled positions of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) had fell into serious error ITA No.503/PUN/2018 3 by holding that the appeal is not admitted for non-prosecution of appeal. Therefore, we vacate this finding of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the circumstances, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23 rd day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23 rd August, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) -5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.