SHITALBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,NFAC,PRESENT-THE ITO,WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 26.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

ITA No. 2000/Ahd/2025 Shitalben Vijaykumar Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2018-19 2

immovable property during the year for a consideration of Rs.92 lakhs and the capital gains derived thereon had escaped assessment. A notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022 after passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. No compliance was made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding. Therefore, the AO had completed the assessment ex-parte u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 23.03.2023 at total income of Rs. 92,00,000/- wherein the entire slae consideration was considered as income of the assessee.

ITA No. 2000/Ahd/2025 Shitalben Vijaykumar Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2018-19 3 4. He has erred in law and on facts in applying decisions mentioned in para 5.3 to 5.3.3 in justifying ex party appeal order without adjudicating grounds in as much as that considering the statement of facts and grounds of appeal as mentioned in appeal memo the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 5. On the facts of the assessee the grounds of appeal ought to have been accepted and the addition of Rs. 92,00,000/-wrongly made as short term capital gain ought to have been deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or modify any grounds of appeal. 5. Shri P F Jain, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that no compliance was made by the assessee in the course of appellate proceeding and he didn’t adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merit. He explained that the assessee was conversant with Income-tax proceedings and she was dependent upon her Counsel for making compliance before the AO as well as before the appellate authorities. She she was not aware about the ongoing proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the actual sale consideration of the property was Rs.46,00,000 only and that the assessee was having only 25% shares therein. Therefore, the AO was not correct in making addition for entire sale consideration in the hand of the assessee, which also wrongly taken. The Ld. AR requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity for making compliance by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 2000/Ahd/2025 Shitalben Vijaykumar Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2018-19 4 7. We have given considered the rival submissions. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution and the issues raised by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee remained non-compliant not only before the Assessing Officer but also before the learned CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed four opportunities to the assessee but apart from seeking adjournment on the first occasion, no further compliance was made. Such repeated non- compliance has resulted in avoidable delay and unnecessary litigation, causing wastage of judicial and administrative time. The explanation advanced by the assessee, namely that she was dependent upon her counsel and was unaware of the progress of the proceedings, cannot completely absolve her of the responsibility to diligently pursue her own case. Nevertheless, considering the submissions made before us that the actual sale consideration was Rs.46,00,000/- and that the assessee allegedly owned only 25% share in the property, we are of the considered view that these factual assertions require proper verification and adjudication on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to afford one final opportunity to the assessee.

ITA No. 2000/Ahd/2025 Shitalben Vijaykumar Patel Vs. ITO, AY- 2018-19 5

evidences filed by the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee, on merits. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. However, having regard to the repeated defaults committed by the assessee before both the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), we consider it appropriate to impose a cost of ₹5,000/- on the assessee, which should be deposited with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, and proof of such payment shall be furnished before the learned CIT(A). Subject to compliance with the aforesaid condition, the learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the Court on 07/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (TAPAS RAM MISRA) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 07th August, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद