SANDEEP NAMDEO NIMHAN,PUNE V. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

ITA 2014/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16, which had been passed ex-parte. The assessee had initially declared a total income of Rs.83,190, but following the reopening of the case under section 147 of the IT Act, his income was reassessed to Rs.1,77,58,190, including a long-term capital gain of Rs.1,76,75,000 from the sale of agricultural land. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee despite multiple opportunities being provided. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present his case and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24620 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK SANDBHOR
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 147; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2014/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan, 114, Jaibhawani Nagar, Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune- 411021. PAN : AWBPN6316R Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 31.12.2015 declaring total income of Rs.83,190/-. On the basis of information that income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.1,76,75,000/- being sale value of agricultural Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 04.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 06.12.2024 ITA No.2014/PUN/2024 2 land has escaped assessment, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act. Notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee submitted that the land sold was not capital asset hence long term capital gain was not payable. After considering the reply of the assessee, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed by determining total taxable income at Rs.1,77,58,190/- against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.83,190/-. The above assessed income includes long term capital gain of Rs.1,76,75,000/-. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted that the appellant requested for adjournment but Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC rejected his request and proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by ITA No.2014/PUN/2024 3 Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to provide one opportunity to substantiate the ground of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that various opportunities were allowed but the assessee remained absent. 5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment order and first appeal order were passed in the name of Suvarna Sandeep Nimhan whereas second appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by legal heir Sandeep Namdeo Nimhan. We also find that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has provided total five opportunities to the appellant-assessee. Out of these five opportunities two were provided during Covid-19 period and only three hearings can be said to be effective hearings provided to the assessee. We also find that the fist effective hearing was provided on 13.06.2024, the second effective hearing was provided on 27.06.2024 and the last and final opportunity was granted on 29.07.2024. Out of three opportunities the assessee sought adjournment on last two dates but ITA No.2014/PUN/2024 4 Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC considering all the five opportunities as provided to the assessee hold that multiple opportunities have already been provided to the assessee, rejected the adjournment application and proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte in the absence of appellant- assessee. Under the above circumstances and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find some force in the argument of Ld. AR that proper opportunity has not been provided to the assessee. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case we deem it fit to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal, otherwise, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. ITA No.2014/PUN/2024 5 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 06th December, 2024. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "