MINNI SANJEEV CHAWLA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

The CIT (Appeals) ignored the detailed submissions and appeal filed by the assessee in Form No. 35. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without reviewing the documentary evidence and explanations uploaded during the assessment proceedings. 3. The assessee could not file the return for A.Y. 2015-16 because her income was below the taxable limit. The case was selected for scrutiny based on the sale of property and cash deposits in her savings account in the normal course of business. 4. The learned A.O. erred in disallowing an indexed cost of Rs. 26,49,163/- for improvements made to combine two flats and other internal modifications, ignoring the documentary evidence and explanations provided during the faceless assessment proceedings. 5. The learned A.O. erred in treating the sale proceeds deposited in the assessee's bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the facts of the case available on record. 6. The assessee's residential flats were sold by the bank under the Securitization Act, 2002, during F.Y. 2014-15. Hence, the A.O.'s request for physical verification was impractical. 7. The learned A.O. erred in adding Rs. 3,23,050/- as profit 7 disclosed under Section 44AD by the assessee during the assessment proceedings” 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, the impugnedorder is an ex-parte order as assessee could not appear due to medical condition prevalent in the house. It is submitted that, the husband of assessee was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and it was difficult for her to focus on the legal and procedural compliances under such circumstances. 3. The Ld.AR has filed a letter dated 26/06/2025 submitting the circumstances of the assessee along with the medical reports and certificates in respect of her husband in support of the above.

The Ld.DR though could not controvert the above submissions on the assessee submitted that even the assessment order was passed ex-parte and none represented assessee before the assessing officer. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records place before us. 5. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for not able to attend to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. There isnothing to establish any malafide intention that is filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. We therefore remand the issue to Ld.CIT(A) to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order by granting proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee. The assessee is at the liberty to furnish all relevant details/information to support its claim. Needless to say that the assessee shall now take proper cognizance of the notices issued through authorised representative without any lapses. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/10/2025 (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member