RANJANA NAIK MIRSANGKAR,BEGIM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 145/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which had dismissed her appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was based on the alleged long-term capital gain from the sale of immovable property amounting to 3,60,21,000 INR, which Mirsangkar failed to adequately respond to or contest. The ITAT found that the NFAC had not adhered to the procedural requirements of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it did not address each issue on merits even in the absence of the appellant's prosecution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473500 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SATISH LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL SARDA LD.
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 145/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar H.No. 614, Walkeshwar Wada, Betim, Bardez, North Goa, Goa PAN : ALDPN9981B . . . . . . . Applicant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064227170(1) dt. 19/04/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 16/03/2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2015-16 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.145/PAN/2024 AY: 2015-16 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual and was identified as non-filer. Upon the receipt of information after recording reasons & obtaining prior approval from the competent authority the case of the assessee vide notice dt. 31/03/2022 was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. In the event of non- compliance and effective failure on the part of the assessee to (a) file return of income in response to aforestated notice (b) to offer satisfactory explanation about the sale consideration arising on sale/transfer of immoveable property for an amount of 3,60,21,000/-, the Ld. AO culminated the proceeding ex-parte to the best of his judgement by bringing to tax the entire amount of sale consideration as long-term capital gain accrued to the assessee and framed the consequential assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. NFAC, which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non-prosecution and in the absence of evidences. Aggrieved by impugned ex-parte order, the assessee came in present appeals challenging the proceedings first on the ground of violation of principle of nature justice later on its merits. Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.145/PAN/2024 AY: 2015-16 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 3. Without touching grounds raised in appeal memo and merits of the case; we have heard the rival parties on the limited issue of non- prosecution & resultant ex-parte dismissal of first appeals and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. 4. Admittedly, the appellant assessee neither in the course of assessment proceedings represented her case with documentary evidences nor could she lay any cogent evidences in the course of first appellate proceedings to dismantle the alleged addition. Thus, both these proceedings before the tax authorities below indeed found culminated ex-parte without appellant’s assistance and in the complete absence of cogent & credible evidences. On the other hand, the appellant assessee failed to make out her case before both the tax authorities below that; no income or gain had indeed arisen to her or accrued to her from the immovable property transaction reported against her PAN for the year under consideration. The impugned proceedings since ceased without effectively determining the rights & liabilities of rival parties, could hardly be continued to stand. Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.145/PAN/2024 AY: 2015-16 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 5. We note that, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, Ld. NFAC is required to state point of determination, decision thereon and reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of above section reveals that, it was incumbent upon Ld. NFAC to make necessary enquiries before passing an order and while doing so it necessitates to deal with each issue/ground on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. Per contra it is found in the instant case that, in the event of non-prosecution the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal simply by reiterating the findings of Ld. AO but without adjudicating in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. The impugned adjudication since inconsonance with above provision (supra), therefore we find no reasons in not setting-aside the impugned order at the stage of its institution with a direction for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law. Ordered Accordingly. 6. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 04th March, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. "