PARVINDAR SINGH,JABALPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case with evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay due to the illness and death of his mother. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order confirming the AO's addition of Rs. 7,20,633, primarily on an ad-hoc basis, due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's circumstances, and whether the addition made by the AO was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. - 2 - appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in passing Ex-party order especially in circumstances when the dates fixed for hearing were majorly in corona period & assessee mother was seriously ill who ultimately passed away in March 2023.
2. On the facts circumstances of the case Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,20,633,(out of Rs. 29,23,904 was made by AO in assessment) especially in the circumstances when the addition of Rs.5,06,033/- (out of Rs.7,20,633/-) was on adhoc basis & being against decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jabalpur bench in case of Ganesh Pratap Singh v ACIT 2013.
3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of Alcoholic/Wine & Hire Truck and Mines Construction. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 07.10.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs.46,44,650/-. Subsequently, the case was Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. - 3 - selected for scrutiny under CASS (i) Due to capital gains consideration disclosed in the ITR is less than sale of property reported in AIR and (ii) Large cash deposits. The Assessing Officer(A.O) has issued the notice u/sec 143(2) and U/sec142(1) of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The AO on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has declared net profit @ 4.09% on the turnover. Further the assessee has sold the immovable property for a consideration of Rs.13 lakhs, whereas the market value or value as per Sec 50C of the Act is at Rs.78,07,000/- and the assessee has purchased the said property on 26.10.2009 from Shri Satpal Daryani for Rs.12 lakhs and the profit on sale of property is liable for taxation and the disputed property was sold on 21.03.2013 in F.Y 2012-13. The A.O has dealt on the reasons for the sale of property below the market value and the submissions of the assessee. But the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and computed the long term capital gains of Rs.29,23,904/- and assessed the total income of Rs.75,68,560/-and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2016.
Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. - 4 -
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance/submissions by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the submissions made in the assessment proceedings.The assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Contra the Ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance/submissions in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. - 5 - not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on various dates referred at Para 6.1 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record When a query was raised to Ld.AR for the reasons for non appearance before the CIT(A), it was submitted that due to serious illness of the assesses mother there is no compliance by the assessee. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition of the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. Accordingly, allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. - 6 -
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026