2025 (6) TMI 949 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of CIT(A)/NFAC s order u/s 144 passed ex-parte - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that so far as the learned lower authorities action placing reliance on Goetze India Ltd. 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT is concerned their lordships make it clear in para 4 that jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain a new claim even without a revised return has nowhere been impinged upon. So far as the Revenue s vehement s contention that the assessee had not filed all his evidences and remand report is concerned we observe that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in the newly introduced system of faceless/virtual hearing could not altogether be ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant s risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings - Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Dehradun) heard an appeal for AY 2015-16 against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The dispute centered on the computation of long-term capital gains at Rs. 53,32,900/- based on sale consideration of Rs. 60.50 lakhs, and the rejection of the assessee's claim for deduction under sections 54 and 54F due to non-filing of a revised return, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC).The Revenue supported the disallowance, while the Assessing Officer had framed a best assessment under section 144 rejecting the section 54F claim. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this, citing lack of cogent evidence from the assessee.The Tribunal observed that Goetze India Ltd. does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims even without a revised return. Noting possible communication gaps in the faceless hearing system, the Tribunal deemed it "appropriate in the larger interest of justice" to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for "afresh appropriate adjudication," allowing three effective hearings at the assessee's risk.The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 23rd April, 2025.