The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, while directing the reassessment of the assessee’s case, held that the notice for reopening the assessment regarding the issue of capital gains was issued in the name of a deceased person. Laxman Mahadev Patil, the assessee, had his assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the assessing officer received information that the assessee had sold an inherited plot of land for a total consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000, which was distributed equally among five members, including the assessee. It was noted that the property was sold for a consideration lesser than the market value.
The property’s valuation was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the Act, and the market value was estimated based on the Valuation Report submitted on 08.08.2017. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reassessed the income under the head ‘Capital Gains’ in the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 16.11.2018, assessing an income of Rs. 2,96,76,817, with the assessee being the 1/5th owner of the property and an income of Rs. 59,35,363 assessed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee challenged the notice for reopening the assessment in the name of a deceased person and also contested that the notice for reopening was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee and expressed satisfaction if the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for making required submissions on the merits of the dispute. During the appeal proceedings, the tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not address the points raised by the assessee but dismissed the appeal solely because the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices. Upon reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of G.S. Pannu (Vice President) and C.V. Bhadang (President) noted that the CIT(A) did not determine the appeal in the manner mandated by the statute.
The appeal was dismissed solely based on the assessee’s failure to appear, ignoring the fundamental point raised by the assessee regarding the notice for reopening being issued in the name of a deceased person. Consequently, the bench directed readjudication. Anant N. Pai appeared as the counsel for the assessee, and Manoj Kumar Sinha appeared as the counsel for the revenue. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE