P.KUPPURAJ,SALEM vs. ITO WARD -1 (4), SALEM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time to file objections and also contended that the remand report was not provided by the CIT(A). Considering these points, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property and did not file a return of income for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer initiated best judgment assessment under Section 144 after issuing several notices which were not complied with. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity to present objections and whether the remand report was provided by the CIT(A) during the assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 50C,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 20.07.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the previous year the assessee has sold immovable property measuring total area of 4564 sq. ft. at Salem. The sale of the above said immovable property attracts capital gain tax as well as provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. Hence, to assess the income of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2017, which was served on the assessee on 30.03.2017. Subsequently, a reminder letter also issued to the assessee on 03.11.2017. However, the assessee has not complied with the above notices. In the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity was given to the assessee to file the return of income by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act which was served on the assessee on 13.11.2017. Despite the above notices issued, the assessee failed to comply with the above said notices. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer send a proposal under section 144 of the Act to the assessee on 11.12.2017 which was served on the assessee on 12.12.2017 proposing the taxability of long term capital gain at ₹.12,12,600/- for the assessment year 2014-15 by giving sufficient time to file his objections, if any, on or before 15.12.2017. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act.
During the previous year, the assessee has sold property vide documents Nos. 2307 & 2308 dated 10.04.2013 and the extent of loan sold was 2282 sq. ft. each for sale consideration of ₹.4,91,000/- each and the market value as fixed by the Government was ₹.11,42,000/- each. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer calculated the long term capital gain tax at ₹.12,12,600/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.14,18,880/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28.12.2017. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient time to file his objections towards long term capital gain tax proposed under section 144 of the Act, in which notice was served on the assessee on 12.12.2017 and directed to file the objection on or before 15.12.2017. It was further submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not provided the copy of the remand report obtained from the Assessing Officer for filing assessee’s counter and prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has not expressed any serious objection for remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed a duly notarized an affidavit, wherein, it was stated that the assessee is aged about 82 years and filed return of income for the above assessment year on 31.07.2014. Moreover, it was also stated that the assessee was not aware of the relevant provisions of law with respect to validity of notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee has also raised a ground that the copy of the remand report was not given to the assessee for filing his objection before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has contended that the sale consideration of ₹.40,88,000/- from the POA Chinthamanai was received in financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and another sum of ₹.11,00,000/- was received from Lavanya in the financial year 2007-08 and possession of the property was handed over to the purchaser. Hence, the assessment has to be considered in the assessment year 2008-09 only as against the assessment year 2010-11.
6.1 In totality, we are of the considered opinion that the entire issue requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the entire matters and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th March, 2023 at Chennai.
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 →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026