9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich enjoins upon the Learned CIT (Appeal) to state the points for determination of Grounds of Appeal, the decision thereon and reasons for the decision for each of the Ground of Appeal separately, more particularly, when the assessee had inter alia assailed the legal validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the copy of reasons recorded by the Learned A.O for initiating reassessment proceedings was not provided to the assessee in Form No.35 filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the Learned ITO-3(3), Raipur vide order dated 21.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act and there is no specific adjudication of the Learned CIT (Appeal) in his impugned order u/s 250 dated 30.08.'23 and the disposal of two legal grounds raised by the assessee in Form No. 35 did not require participation of the assessee and therefore could not have been summarily dismissed that to without dealing with the said Legal Grounds anywhere in the body of the impugned order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.'23 which renders the order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.'23 to be-suffering from mistake apparent from records and rectifiable u/s. 154, hence, the impugned order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny or all the above grounds of Appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 31.03.2013, declaring an income of Rs. 1,57,280/-. Subsequently, the A.O based on information that though the assessee had during the subject year sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 47.57 lacs on 03.04.2010 but had not offered the same for tax under the head "capital gain" in his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 27.02.2018 was issued by the A.O. In compliance, the assessee had filed his return of income on 29.11.2018 declaring an income of Rs. 1,57,280/- i.e. as was originally returned. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee while computing the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of the subject property, had, inter alia, raised claim for deduction of cost of improvement aggregating to Rs. 9.75 lacs, viz. (i) improvement carried out during the year 1990-91: Rs. 6,25,000/-; and (ii) improvement carried out during the year 1991-92 : Rs. 3,50,000/-. As the assessee had failed to substantiate his aforesaid claim bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case has held as under: "4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given. 5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT [2001] 248 ITR 5771, has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her to comply statutory notices issued from time to time. However, the appellant is well aware and filed appeal before the CIT(A) within prescribed time. In the entire appellate proceeding, the CIT(A) has given ample opportunities (more than 06 times) to appellant to substantiate the issue with documentary evidences. However, appellant/AR has refrained from submitting response/submission during the ern appellate proceedings. Therefore, after considering the fact of the case, the CIT(, has dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the addition made by the AO. Nov, the appellant has filed rectification application before me stating that the CIT(A) should rectify the order passed u/s 250 of the Act. However, the appellant has failed to produce any substantive document before me during rectification proceeding which appears that there was some mistake which apparent from record. The CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act after considering the fact of the case. Further, it could be seen that there is no mistake which is apparent from record in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act. Therefore, the rectification application filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 6. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee vide his Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 had specifically assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for initiating the proceedings without making available a copy of the "reasons to believe" based on which the case of the assessee was reopened. I am of the view that now when the assessee had specifically challenged the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 21.12.2018, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the said issue by calling for the assessment records. Rather, I find that though the assessee vide his rectification application dated 20.09.2024 had, inter alia, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT (Central), Nagpur Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) seeking disposal of the appeal vide a speaking order but the first appellate authority by dismissing the said application had allowed his said mistake to perpetuate. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am unable to concur with the view ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
