TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2018 for assessment year 2015-16. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in restricting the deduction claimed on account of cost of improvement after indexation to Rs.3,90,500/- as against Rs.6,50,000/- claimed by the assessee on account of extraneous reasons and the learned CIT(Appeals)- 3, Bhopal has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned A.O without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, hence, it is prayed that the disallowance and consequential enhancement to the total income may kindly be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020) (Born HC); Caprihans India Ltd (2020) (Born HC); Saumya Construction (P) Ltd (2016) (Guj.)" As the aforesaid additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us involves purely a question of law based on the facts available on record, therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we herein admit the same. 2. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted under Sec. 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assessee on 17.01.2017. Consequently, the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 153A filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 06.06.2018, declaring an income of Rs. 3,89,840/-. 3. During t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of Rs. 5.19 lac [Rs. 13 lac (-) Rs. 7.81 lac] claimed by the aforesaid persons had remained unexplained, therefore, 50% of the assessee's claim of expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,59,500/-[50% of Rs. 5,19,000/-] was liable to be disallowed. Accordingly, the A.O reworked out the LTCG on sale of the aforesaid property in the hands of the assessee at Rs.22,34,408/-. Consequent thereto the assessee's claim for deduction under Sec. 54F was also restricted by the A.O to an amount of Rs. 15,65,471/-. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O determined the income of the assessee from LTCG at Rs. 6,68,937/- [Rs. 22,34,408/- (-) Rs. 15,65,471/-]. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issues which arose from the impugned order and were assailed by the assessee before him. In our considered view once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then, it is obligatory on his part to dispose off the same on merits. We are of a strong conviction that it is not open for the CIT(A) to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same by the assessee. Rather, a perusal of Sec.251(1)(a) and (b), as well as the "Explanation" to Sec. 251(2) reveals that the CIT(A) remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him. As per the mandate of law the CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the....