Kumari Jaiwanti Naresh Gupta v. ITO, Ward-9(2), Pune
[Citation -2019-LL-0923-37]

Citation 2019-LL-0923-37
Appellant Name Kumari Jaiwanti Naresh Gupta
Respondent Name ITO, Ward-9(2), Pune
Court ITAT-Pune
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2019
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income from house property • denial of exemption • audi alteram partem • bogus transaction • interest income • non-appearance • exemption of long-term capital gain • ex-parte order • restoration of appeal
Bot Summary: Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is the case where the assessee reported income from house property and interest income in the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer treated the same as bogus transaction and made the entire capital gains as income of the assessee as per the discussion given in para 4.5 of the assessment order. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in the absence of the assessee merely relying on the written submission. Without going into the merits of the claim of the assessee as well as correctness of the decisions of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), I am of the opinion, as proposed by the AR of the assessee, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after hearing the assessee or his authorized -3- ITA No.839/PUN/2019 representative or both as per the set principles of natural justice. The adjudication of the appeal should be done after hearing the assessee and certainly not after considering the mere written submission of the assessee. With these directions, the issues raised by the assessee are remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to make appearance as promised in the Court and the CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue afresh after hearing the assessee and shall pass a speaking order.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ITA No.839/PUN/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Kumari Jaiwanti Naresh Gupta, Sec. No.26, Plot No.530, Ganganagar, Akurdi Pradhikaran, Pune-411044. PAN : AGAPG1174D Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Pune. Respondent Appellant by Shri Pramod Shingte Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Ghai Date of Hearing 23.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2019 ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM This appeal is filed by assessee against order of CIT(A)-8, Pune dated 10.05.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. issue raised in appeal relates to denial of exemption u/s 10(38) of Act in respect of long term capital gains amounting to Rs.23,45,393/-. 3. Before me, at outset, ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that this is case where assessee reported income from house property and interest income in Return of Income. Assessee claimed exempt long term capital gains too. ld. AR also submitted that assessee -2- ITA No.839/PUN/2019 reported investment in shares and reported earning of long term capital gains on sale of same. Assessing Officer treated same as bogus transaction and made entire capital gains as income of assessee as per discussion given in para 4.5 of assessment order. Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 68 of Act while making said addition. 4. Before first appellate authority, assessee filed written submission who chosen not to appear personally or represent case through authorised representative. CIT(A) issued number of letters and notices which were not considered relevant for personal appearance. CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assessee as per discussion given in para 6.4 of his order. 5. Before me, explaining background facts of case, ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that CIT(A) adjudicated issue in absence of assessee merely relying on written submission. 6. On other hand, ld. DR for Revenue heavily relied on orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 7. After hearing both sides on this issue and perusing ex-part order of CIT(A), I am of opinion, adjudication by CIT(A) is not upto mark in view of non-appearance of assessee or his authorized representative before CIT(A). Generally, quality of adjudication suffers when there is no personal appearance of assessee or his Authorized Representative. Without going into merits of claim of assessee as well as correctness of decisions of Assessing Officer and CIT(A), I am of opinion, as proposed by AR of assessee, matter should be remanded back to file of CIT(A) for deciding issue afresh after hearing assessee or his authorized -3- ITA No.839/PUN/2019 representative or both as per set principles of natural justice. adjudication of appeal should be done after hearing assessee and certainly not after considering mere written submission of assessee. principles of audi alteram partem have to be strictly followed by CIT(A). With these directions, issues raised by assessee are remanded to file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. assessee is directed to make appearance as promised in Court and CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate issue afresh after hearing assessee and shall pass speaking order. Thus, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of September, 2019. Sd/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune Dated 23rd September, 2019. Sujeet Copy of Order is forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent; 3. CIT(A)-8, Pune 4. Pr. CCIT, Pune 5. DR SMC , ITAT, Pune; 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary , ITAT, Pune Kumari Jaiwanti Naresh Gupta v. ITO, Ward-9(2), Pune
Report Error