SUHAS DATTATRAY GURAV,BAVDHAN V. ITO WARD 2(5), PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

ITA 2679/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Suhas Dattatray Gurav against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], which was dismissed for non-compliance due to the non-receipt of notices. The assessee argued that the notices were not received on the email provided in Form No. 35, nor were they communicated physically. The assessee also faced health issues, including paralysis and dementia, which contributed to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay valid and admitted the appeal for hearing, ultimately deciding to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472341 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK MESHR AM
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 20

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suhas Dattatray Gurav, 14 Patil Palese Malvadi Gavathan, Vahashri Appt, BA Vidhan Khurda NDA, Pashan Road, Mulshi, Pune – 411021. PAN: AXVPG6652N V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Abhishek Meshram–Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 2 Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 29.11.2023 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. The Registry has informed that there is a delay of 322 days in filing of the instant appeal. The ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons resulting into the delay in filing of this appeal. From going through the Affidavit, we notice that the notices of hearing were not issued by ld.CIT(A) on the Email-id mentioned in Form NO.35 and also there was no physical communication of the notices. Also it is stated that the assessee has been facing health issues including Paralasis Dementia. Though the ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposing the contention of the delay, we, considering the reasons mentioned in the Affidavit and also in the larger interest of justice, condone the delay of 322 days and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 3 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “(1) Whether on the face and in the circumstances of the case and in the LD CIT(A) Justified is rejecting the appeal on the premise that appellant had not replied to notices Issued in absence of service of any of the notices issued on the e-mail id communicated the appellant in the Form No 35 fled while prefening the appeal (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the LD CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appear on the basis of non-compliance of notices which were sued on the e-mail id communicated by the appellant for sending the notices (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting on the premise of non- compliance of notices saved, without adjudicating the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant that the income from the immovable property transaction was assessable in the hands of the family Hut and not hands of the appellant as the rights of occupation (kabjedaar) & habitation (varivaatda) had devolved on the entire Gurav family and these were indivisible and as such nether was partition of the rights possible in law nor was the share of each individual ascertainable? ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 4 (4) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITIA) was Justified in rejecting on the premise of non- compliance of notices issued, the ground that the share of the appellant was erroneously taken at 1/5 of the total consideration i.e.Rs.41.89.906/- of Rs 2.12.45.000/- despite the fact that appellant was one of the 20 signatori to the agreement of transfer and hence his share in the total consideration was only Rs 10,62,250/- (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Lid. CIT(A) was Justified in rejecting the appeal without considering the fact that a substantial question low was involved in the appeal regarding applicability of the provisions of Sec SOC of the Income Tax Act in so far as the appellant was not the owner of the property in question and as such ha rights of occupation and habitation were not recognised as land or building or land and building in terms of the provisions of Sec 50C of the Income Tax Act (Additional Ground Not Taken Before Assessing Officer And Faceless Appellate Authority .” 4. At the outset, the ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the grounds of appeal and merely dismissed for non- ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 5 compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard. 5. On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The ld.CIT(A) has decided the grounds of appeal ex-parte qua assessee and has upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee did not receive notice of hearing he/ld.AR could not plead on merits of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and restore the issue on merits back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass the order in accordance with Law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 6 required and also provide correct and active Email-id, Contact details on the Income Tax Portal, so that proper communication is possible between the Department and Assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st February, 2025. Sd/- (DR. MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 21st Feb, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. ITA No.2679/PUN/2024 [A] 7 आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "