RAJENDRA JAVANMAL GANDHI,RAIGAD V. ITO, WARD 1, PANVEL, PANVEL

ITA 1216/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Javanmal Gandhi, an individual engaged in the business of real estate under the name M/s. Tiruma Properties, who appealed against the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the assessee's declared income, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The additions pertained to unaccounted sales of flats and discrepancies in the sale consideration reported for certain flats. The CIT(A) dismissed the initial appeal due to non-participation of the assessee, attributed to communication failures with his consultant. The ITAT, considering the circumstances, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32485 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHAS BORA
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 43CA

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1216/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajendra Javanmal Gandhi 103/104, Nandanvan Complex, Opp. Panvel Industrial Area, Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Vs. ITO, Ward 1, Panvel PAN: AGZPG2635G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 29-10-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-10-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 25.01.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the additions of Rs.2,65,01,095/- and Rs.64,769/-, respectively made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business of builders and developers under the name and style of M/s. Tiruma 2 ITA No.1216/PUN/2024 Properties. He filed his return of income on 13.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,90,930/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS category. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee, in its Profit and Loss Account, has shown flats sold at Rs.99,43,347/-. He observed that the assessee has sold five flats for a total consideration of Rs.3,64,44,412/- and one flat bearing flat No.306 of the building remained unsold. The assessee has not furnished any reason for not accounting the sale proceeds of all the flats which were sold upto 31.03.2016. The Assessing Officer therefore, considered the total sale consideration at Rs.3,64,44,412/- instead of Rs.99,43,347/- declared by the assessee and made addition of Rs.2,65,01,095/- being the difference between the sale of flats shown and the actual sales. The Assessing Officer further noted that flat No.106 has been sold to one Mr. Ravindra Farat for a consideration of Rs.25,48,731/- vide agreement dated 08.01.2016 whereas the market price as per Index-II filed by the assessee was Rs.26,13,500/-. The Assessing Officer, applying the provisions of section 43CA of the Act, made addition of Rs.64,769/- being the difference between the market price and the actual sale consideration. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,76,56,790/- as against the returned income of Rs.10,90,930/-. 4. Since the assessee did not reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC despite five opportunities granted by him, the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 3 ITA No.1216/PUN/2024 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the notices were sent to the e-mail ID of the erstwhile consultant who did not inform the assessee for which the assessee could not participate in the appeal proceedings. Further, the CIT(A) / NFAC has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the CIT(A)/ NFAC. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC and submitted that despite five opportunities granted by him, the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that despite five opportunities granted by the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings for which he was constrained to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the e-mails were sent to the erstwhile consultant whose e-mail was 4 ITA No.1216/PUN/2024 given in Form No.35 and he did not inform the assessee for which all these unfortunate events happened. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the CIT(A) / NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and file the requisite details without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 29th October, 2024 GCVSR 5 ITA No.1216/PUN/2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 29.10.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 29.10.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "