9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT(A) has not considered these evidences, before finalizing his appeal order. This is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, we are of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to present his case, especially because consideration of his arguments and evidences go to the very root of the matter i.e. his status for the purposes of determination of taxability of investments purported to be made by him and amounts deposited by him in his bank account. Accordingly, we remand back both the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the matter, after considering the evidences already submitted by the assessee and any other that the assessee may wish to submit upon being issued further notices. We also direct the assessee to make full compliance before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC so as to enable him to determine the true facts of the case. As the appeals have been set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A), they are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. - Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Aditya Chhajed Sh. Shivang, Advocates For the Revenue : Sh. A.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without deciding the appeal on the merits as laid down in Dinesh Kumar Chimanbhai Nandani Versus Income Tax Officer and ITO, New Delhi v. M/s. M.M. Chhabra Sons (HUF), New Delhi. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Act, on 08.07.2024 is bad in the eye of law as the same is issued after the time limitation period allowed by the section 250 of the Act. 9. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), is on assumptive grounds and is beyond the financial capacity of the assessee to pay. 10. That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the matter. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the appeals, an application was received on 21.10.2024 that ITA Nos.138 139/Alld/2024 were originally filed before the Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench. However, since the appropriate jurisdiction for appeal was before the Hon ble ITAT, Allahabad , therefore, the Hon ble ITAT Delhi had transferred the matter to Hon ble ITAT, Allahabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n he received a hard copy by the post. The ld. CIT(A) considered these submissions of the assessee that in the A.Ys.2013-14 and 2014-15, that the assessee was an NRI and his total income in India did not exceed the maximum limit which were not chargeable to tax. However, he observed that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence such as passport/Visa in support of his claim of being NRI in the relevant year, therefore he refused to accept the contention of the appellant. He further observed that the assessee had filed an affidavit to the extent that the owner of immovable property was one Liyaqat Ali, but the ld. CIT(A) observed, that he had not submitted any copy of registered deed/Parcha/Khatiyan etc., in support of his claim and hence the contention of the assessee could not be accepted. He further observed from the bank statement of the assessee, that he had deposited cash in his bank accounts on various dates during the year and from the same he concluded that the assessee was continuously residing in India during the year. In view of the above, he rejected all the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant and the additions made by the ld. AO were upheld. 4. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al justice and therefore, void. In support of this argument, our attention was invited to the following decisions:- i. ACIT vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh, 2018 (9) TMI 1936 SC. ii. Nabco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Others Writ Tax No.997 of 2022 (Allahabad) dated 3.08.2022. iii. Emco Cables (India) Private Limited vs. Union of India Others, W.T.(C) 1622/2024 and C.M. Appl. 6702/2024 dated 27.02.2024 (Delhi). Accordingly, it was prayed that since the assessee was not heard on merits, it was a sufficient ground for quashing the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders dated 8.07.2024 for the A.Ys. 2013- 14 and 2014-15, may kindly be set aside and directions be issued to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present the complete facts at hand and thereafter for the lower authorities to adjudicate the matter, based on the facts available on record. In response, Shri. A.K. Singh, ld. Sr. DR submitted that while he had no objection to the matter being remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the evidence furnished by the assessee, in view of the failure of the assessee to comply during assessment proceedings, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
