PRAGNA KIRTI KEDIA,MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 2861/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Pragna Kirti Kedia against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 54, which confirmed various disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2019-2020. The primary issues revolved around the legality of the assessment order passed under sections 143(3) read with 144B, violations of natural justice, and disallowances related to income from house property. The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was justified by the assessee citing precedents from the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in default without considering the merits, which necessitated a remand for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23997 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN.
• Assessee Lawyers: VINITA SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 205

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2861/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Pragna Kirti Kedia, C 302, Waterford Building Above Navnit Motors Mumbai-400 005. Vs. NFAC, Delhi PAN NO. ADWPK 9701 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Vinita Shah Revenue by : Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 22/10/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 54 [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019- 20, raising following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in fact in not holding that the AO has erred in passing Assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Act which is bad in law, illegal and null and void. 2. The learned CIT(A) has holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed of Municipal House Property. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of Interest claimed on borrowed funds u/s. 24(b) of the Act Rs. 3,03,63,959/ head Income from House Pro 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the addition entire rent of Rs.9,00,000/ giving the 2/3 deduction of another two persons under the head Income from House Property. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fac confirming the disallowance of House Property Loss of Rs. 2,81,15,463/ 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming Rs. 2,00,000/ against other head of Income. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for th Registry has pointed out a delay of 205 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. counsel submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the, the Ld. Assessing Officer on 29.09.2021 and therefore, in normal circumstances Tribunal within 60 days from the date of impugned final assessment order. But this appeal has been filed on 11.08.2023. The Ld. counsel submitted that delay in filing this appeal is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) case of N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within the limitation period in view of the d u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Act which is bad in law, illegal and null and void. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in not holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed of Municipal Tax Rs. 42,97,639/- under the head Income from House Property. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of Interest claimed on borrowed funds u/s. 24(b) of the Act Rs. 3,03,63,959/- under the head Income from House Property. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the addition entire rent of Rs.9,00,000/- giving the 2/3 deduction of another two persons under the head Income from House Property. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fac confirming the disallowance of House Property Loss of Rs. 2,81,15,463/-• The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming Rs. 2,00,000/- of House property Loss set off against other head of Income. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Registry has pointed out a delay of 205 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. counsel submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the, the Ld. Assessing Officer on 29.09.2021 and therefore, in normal circumstances the appeal was due before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of impugned final assessment order. But this appeal has been filed on 11.08.2023. The Ld. counsel submitted that delay in filing this appeal is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within the limitation period in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Pragna Kirti Kedia 2 ITA No. 2861/MUM/2024 u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Act which is bad in law, illegal erred in law and in fact in not holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed of under the head Income from The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of Interest claimed on borrowed under the The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in without giving the 2/3 deduction of another two persons under the The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of House Property Loss of Rs. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in of House property Loss set off e assessee submitted that Registry has pointed out a delay of 205 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. counsel submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the, the Ld. Assessing Officer on 29.09.2021 and the appeal was due before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of impugned final assessment order. But this appeal has been filed on 11.08.2023. The Ld. counsel submitted that delay in filing this appeal is covered Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) and in the N. Balakrishna v. M. Ramamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123. Accordingly, he submitted that appeal might be treated as within ecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not object for admitting the appeal for adjudication. In view of the above, we are admitting the appeal for adjudication being within the limitation period in view o Court (supra). 3. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) assessee without deciding the issue on merit and therefore, this appeal might be set aside for deciding afresh. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices for hearing however, same were not complied by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter dismissed the appeal in default without considering the issue on merit. In our opinion, under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds raised by the assessee even in absence of any submission on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds raised by the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Court (supra). The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not object for admitting the appeal for adjudication. In view of the above, we are admitting the appeal for adjudication being within the limitation period in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) ex assessee without deciding the issue on merit and therefore, this might be set aside for deciding afresh. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices for hearing however, same were not complied by the IT(A) thereafter dismissed the appeal in default without considering the issue on merit. In our opinion, under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds raised by the ee even in absence of any submission on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds y the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Pragna Kirti Kedia 3 ITA No. 2861/MUM/2024 Court (supra). The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not object for admitting the appeal for adjudication. In view of the above, we are admitting the appeal for adjudication being within the f the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that ex-parte qua the assessee without deciding the issue on merit and therefore, this We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices for hearing however, same were not complied by the IT(A) thereafter dismissed the appeal in default without considering the issue on merit. In our opinion, under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds raised by the ee even in absence of any submission on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds y the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 22/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/ SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Pragna Kirti Kedia 4 ITA No. 2861/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /10/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "