Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 67 days. The assessee was engaged in business and had sold an immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on the sale consideration, ready reckoner value, and investment in a new property.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to furnish documents before the lower authorities, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo assessment. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for their recalcitrant attitude.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the assessee's non-compliance warrants a remand for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(2), 142(1), 50C, 56(2)(vii), 143(3), 44AD, 80C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM
(Assessment Year: 2013-14) Kamala Pitaram Choudhary ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Flat No. E1302, Patel Heritage, Plot No. 15/17, Sector-7, Kharghar, Navi Vs. Mumbai – 410210. PAN/GIR No. AFBPC6857K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V. D. Parmar Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2013-14.
It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal with a delay of 67 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay for the reason that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay condoned.
(A.Y. 2013-14) Kamala Pitaram Choudhary 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.(i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing appeal for non-compliances. The Ld CIT(A) relied on following decisions (1) CIT vs BN Bhattacharjee & Others
10. CTR 354(SC) 92) Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT 223 ITR 489 (MP) 2.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming various additions of Rs 48,77,018/-.
3. (i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of short-term capital gain of Rs22.73.100/-. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of Section 50C by AO without appreciating the fact that assessee has objected to the ready reckoner value of flat at Rs 56,02,000/- during assessment proceedings So AO was duty bound to refer the case to valuation officer as per provisions of law, So confirming addition of Rs 22,73,100/-as short term capital gain is not justified.
4. (i)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 22 lakhs us 68 of the IT Act 1961. (ii) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs 2,88,000/-us 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act 1961.
5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of agriculture income of Rs 85,200/-as unexplained money.
6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of deduction under chapter VIA of section 80C Rs 30,716/-.
7. The Appellant craves to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was engaged in the business activities of sale of cut pieces and has shown profit u/s. 44AD. The assessee had filed her return of income dated 30.03.2015, declaring total income at Rs.
(A.Y. 2013-14) Kamala Pitaram Choudhary 3,20,190/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/-, whereas as per Section 50C of the Act the registered value of the flat was determined at Rs. 56,02,000/- which was not declared in the return of income of the assessee. The ld. AO further held that the assessee had invested in a new property jointly in her name and Pitaram P. Choudhary of equal shares for a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-, for which the registration value was Rs. 65,76,000/-. Hence, the difference of Rs. 5,76,000/- as per Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act was proportionately added to the extent of Rs.2,85,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2016, determining total income at Rs. 29,24,110/- after making the above mentioned addition/disallowance.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an ex parte order dated 22.03.2025 upheld the addition/disallowance made by the ld. AO were the assessee is said to have not complied with the appellate proceeding inspite of several opportunities.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for her non-appearance before the lower authorities (A.Y. 2013-14) Kamala Pitaram Choudhary and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue back to the lower authorities for the reason that the assessee has been non-compliant before the lower authorities inspite of various opportunities provided.
Upon considering the rival contentions, it is observed that the assessee is said to have not complied before the first appellate authority and has also failed to furnish all the relevant documentary evidences before ld. CIT(A). Even before us, the present appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 67 days after the period of limitation. In order to provide the assessee with one more opportunity by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo assessment. We also deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for recalcitrant attitude of the assessee in constantly not being compliant before the first appellate authority and the same is to be paid to Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days from the receipt of this order and the proof of which has to be furnished to the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is strictly directed to comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on her side and needless it is to say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to the assessee.