SARITA ALICE SEQUEIRA,GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's failure to appear on multiple occasions. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 based on information about a property sale. The Assessing Officer added a significant amount as undisclosed short-term capital gains, which the CIT(A) confirmed ex-parte. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, citing violations of natural justice and issues with the reopening notice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper adherence to natural justice, and whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM
A.Y. 2011-12, against the appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), dated 23rd June, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 11(2)(1), Mumbai under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th December, 2018, was dismissed.
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex parte order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the notice dated 28.03.2018 issued u/s. 148 is bad in law in as much as the mandate of section 148 is not satisfied. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3) r. w. s. 147 dated 24.12.2018 be quashed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,12,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO as alleged undisclosed short term capital gains. Your appellant, therefore, prays the aforesaid addition of Rs.3,12,50,000/- be deleted.”
Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income on 31st March, 2013, at a total income of ₹12,42,210/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 10th March, 2014, at the returned income. Subsequently, the information was received on 25th March, 04. 2018, from the Investigation Wing, that huge non-cash transactions took place in the newly opened savings bank
The assessee was issued a notice to show cause why the share of the assessee of short term capital gain should not be added back in the hands of the assessee. The assessee stated that entire short term capital gain has shown by the assessee’s husband in her return of income. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and computed the short term capital gain on sale of the property.
According to the learned Assessing Officer, the property was sold for ₹10 crores, which was purchased by the joint owners for ₹3,75,00,000/- and therefore, short term capital gain of ₹6.25 crores resulted to the co-owners. As
On appeal before the learned CIT (A), assessee was given four opportunities of hearing but assessee did not represent herself, therefore, learned CIT (A) passed the order ex-parte. The learned CIT (A) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer. While confirming the order of the learned CIT (A), noted that identical situation arose in the hands of the husband of the assessee. He disclosed this income as business income which was treated by the learned Assessing Officer as short term capital gain. On appeal before the learned CIT (A), the addition was confirmed; therefore, the addition was to be made in the hands of the assessee.
At the time of hearing of the case, assessee sought an adjournment by letter dated 14th December, 2023. However, it is found that as the learned CIT (A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee without hearing the assessee. No doubt the assessee has been granted four opportunities to put her case before him. But she failed all the times. At the time of seeking adjournment, it was promised that assessee will appear before the learned CIT (A) if one more chance is given to her.
In the result, adjournment request of the assessee is rejected and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2023.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
