MANGALA RAMLING PIMPALE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, AHMEDNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present her case before the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present her case on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold land and received Rs. 98,00,000/- as her share of consideration. She did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment ex-parte, adding the sale consideration under Section 68.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee is sustainable, and how the sale consideration should be treated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-06-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2013-14 wherein he confirmed the order of Assessing Officer ex-parte of assessee.
We find there was no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore we proceed to dispose of the case by hearing the ld. DR and material available on record.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee sold a land jointly having 50% share and her part of the consideration was Rs.98,00,000/-. For not filing of the return of income, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act and in response to as emanating from the record the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO proceeded to complete the assessment to his best judgment u/s. 144/147 of the Act by adding above said amount u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). For non-appearance of assessee the CIT(A) basing on the material available on record held the same as income from Short Term Capital Gain.
We have perused the case records and heard the ld. DR. As discussed above there was no opportunity for the assessee before the AO nor in the First Appellate proceedings. We note that the AO added entire sale consideration u/s. 68 of the Act and the CIT(A) opined it should be treated as income from Short Term Capital Gain. In our considered opinion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO that one more opportunity needs to be given to the assessee to present her case on merits so that justice can be delivered.
In view of the matter, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to present herself before the AO with evidences, if any, to represent her case on merits. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th October, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 20th October, 2020. RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026