The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 on the basis of information received that the assessee with other co-owners had sold a plot of land and had not offered to tax the capital gains arising on sale. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a letter requesting the A.O. to refer to the District Valuation Officer. The A.O. referred to the District Valuation Officer u/s. 55A and 55C of Act for determination of value of the property. Pending receipt of the Valuation Report, the A.O. completed the assessment on protective basis by determining the share of the assessee subject to the outcome of the report of the District Valuation Officer with reference to the market value of the property on the date of transfer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte confirming the action of the A.O. On appeal, the Tribunal remanded to issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh providing the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing in view of the prayer that valuation report was not received before completion of assessment and that the assessee wanted to substantiate his case with evidence and information. (AY. 2011-12)
Arun Moreshwar Patil v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 53 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)
S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Dismissal of appeal for non appearance-Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT (A) to decide afresh in the interest of natural justice.[S. 55A, 55C,254(1)]