TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition No. 2/Bang/2018 seeking stay on recovery of demand raised. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :- 2.1 The assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30.08.2012 declaring income of Rs. 33,71,480 from rental income, capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 5.8.2013 declaring income of Rs. 39,70,830. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 20.03.2015 wherein the assessee's income was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iples of Natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) grossly erred in not disposing on merits the following grounds, namely - (i) Addition of Rs. 2,26,866/- under head income from House property, (ii) Addition of Capital Gains of Rs. 8,36,25,000/-, (iii) Addition under S.50C of Rs. 1,14,37,500/- ; and (iv) Disallowance of benefit of S.80C of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. 4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition under house property income without appreciating that the which was declared under maintenance charges hence the addition amounted to double addition. 5. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition under income from capital gains without appreciating that the appellant had worked out short term ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order is passed without even properly looking into the grounds raised on all additions made, addressing the issues raised and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer without even addressing them. It is argued that when all 4 additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were clearly challenged by the assessee in the grounds raised before the learned CIT (Appeals), the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT (Appeals) considered only one issue, ignored the other three issues raised and proceeded to dismiss the assessee's appeal without considering the details, explanations and written submissions put forth by the assessee in a perverse manner; which is opposed to the principles of natural justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceeded to confirm this issue raised, and rendered a finding that no interference is called for in the order of the Assessing Officer, without in any way discussing the assessee's submissions even on this issue of addition under Section 50C of the Act and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in view of the facts of the case as brought out in paras 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 of this order (supra), it is amply clear that the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is perverse; in absolute violation of the principles of natural justice; passed without any application of mind; absolutely ignoring to address, consider and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its, on the following 4 issues :- i. Addition of Rs. 2,26,866 under the head 'Income from House Property'. ii. Addition of Capital Gains of Rs. 8,36,25,000. iii. Addition u/s. 50C of the Act - Rs. 1,14,37,500. iv. Disallowance of claim u/s. 80C of the Act - Rs. 1,00,000. This is evidently clear from a perusal of the grounds of appeal extracted by the learned CIT (Appeals) at para 4 on pages 3 to 5 of the impugned order. We find that strangely the learned CIT (Appeals) states at the inception of the paragraph 4 that the assessee is "Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order of the A.O."; which is factually incorrect, as it is the order of assessment that the assessee was aggrieved by and was befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds raised and stating at para 9 of the order that there was only a solitary issue to be decided, even though she extracted the same in her order and stated therein that she had considered the grounds raised, the statement of facts and written submissions, etc. filed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the negligent, flippant and irresponsible approach of the learned CIT (Appeals) has indeed caused hardship and injustice to the assessee, in the interest of substantial justice the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is set aside and restored to her file for fresh examination, verification and adjudication in respect of the issues and grounds raised by the assessee, on merits, as set out b....