9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired on 26.04.2021. Thus, we are of the considered view that assessee was not granted reasonable and sufficient opportunities of hearing by CIT(A). AO has made addition u/s 54F - CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order without discussing the merits of the case. AR has stated that the appellant has all evidences and explanation in support of the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. We find that impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. Speaking order would obviously enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that assessee filed his return of income (in short ROI ) on 22.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,520/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and after issuing statutory notice(s) and questionnaire, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26.12.2016 determining total income at Rs. 74,19,630/-. The AO has disallowed deduction of Rs. 72,79,111/- out of Rs. 1,06,78,991/- claimed u/s 54F of the Act. The sale consideration was Rs. 1,09,26,100/- and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.12.2020, 13.10.2022 and 29.01.2024. In response to the first notice, the assessee requested for adjournment till April, 2021. In response to other two notices, there was noncompliance by the assessee. The CIT(A) has observed that assessee did not effectively pursued the appeal and has not given any explanation or furnished any documents relating to demolition of the old building and construction of new bungalow. He also observed that assessee was provided reasonable opportunity of being heard but he has chosen not to avail the opportunity granted to him. Thereafter, relying on the decision in case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee has filed present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered the submission of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee had requested for adjournment in response to the notice issued by CIT(A) on 30.12.2020. He has requested to grant a date in April, 2021. However, we find that subsequent notices were issued very late on 13.10.2022 and 29.01.2024. We also find that assessee had expired on 26.04.2021. In view of these facts, we are of the considered view that assessee was not granted reasonable and sufficient opportunities of hearing by CIT(A). The AO has made addition of Rs. 72,79,111/- u/s 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
