MR. VIJAYKUMAR PRAMANAD SETHI,JALNA V. ITO WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA

ITA 464/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Vijaykumar Parmanad Sethi, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issue arose from the addition of Rs. 21,59,500 as income from other sources, related to the differential amount between the purchase price and the stamp value of a property acquired by the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and had not complied with the procedural requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775817 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another, 10 CTR 354 (SC), Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CIT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.464/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Vijaykumar Parmanad Sethi, Plot No. 4, V P Sethi Construction, Bhokardan Road, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna-431230 PAN : AJRPS2618A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09-09-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.12.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal filed before him. The Impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is therefore not as per law, in terms of sub section (1) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1.1 The impugned appellate order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is invalid and bad in-laws, as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing the impugned appellate order. The Impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is therefore not as per law, in terms of sub-section (1) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.464/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual. For AY 2018-19 he filed his return of income on 30.03.2019. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue – „Investment in Immovable Property‟. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued and served upon the assessee from time to time. In response thereto, the assessee filed certain details such as the registered deed, ledger, computation of income and a letter of allotment from the builder. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the relevant AY, the assessee purchased shop located on unit no 304, 3rd floor, C wing, in Kailash Business Park at Ghatkopar Powai Link Road, Park Site Vikroli Mumbai-79 on 06.11.2017 for Rs.35,40,000/-. As per the registered deed, the stamp value of purchased shop was Rs.56,99,500/- which was less than the purchase price and therefore the differential amount of Rs.21,59,500/- was covered by the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld. AO therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing the addition of 21,59,500/- as income from other sources. No response was filed to the said show cause notice. Hence, the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment after scrutinizing the details and documents furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings on 01.03.2021 u/s 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 21,59,500/-. 4. Since the assessee did not file any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in response to the notices issued by him despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. On merits, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not intentional. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in position to substantiate its claim by filing the requisite documentary evidence. He therefore requested that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.464/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 substantiate its case by setting aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh on merits. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted the assessee never bothered to make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He, accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted the assessee did not make any submission for which the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. The Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that since the assessee has failed to produce any substantial evidence to overturn the decision of the Ld. AO, the assessee appears to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal and hence refrained himself from taking decision on the grounds of appeal on merits. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details/evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision of in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another, 10 CTR 354 (SC), Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CIT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. None-the- less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has upheld the decision of the Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.464/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 play, to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file to adjudicate the issue afresh by passing a speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 09th September, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "