What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make compliance before the CIT(A) and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The assessee declared LTCG on sale of land, but the AO treated it as income from other sources as the assessee acted as a Power of Attorney holder and was not the owner. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the income should be treated as LTCG or income from other sources.

Bhupendra Shantilal Shah, Vadodara vs DCIT | s.143(3) | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, AR

For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, SR-DR

Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

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 20.06.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “The Act”].

There was delay of 453 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for delay. It has been submitted that the delay was for the reason that the assessee was not aware about the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The notices as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was communicated on the e-mail I’d of the erstwhile chartered accountant who did not forward or communicate the

ITA No. 2291/Ahd/2025 Bhupendra Shantilal Shah Vs DCIT, AY- 2015-16 2 assessee about the passing of the order. The assessee came to know about the order only after a show-cause notice for penalty was received by him. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 25.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.2,30,19,969/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CAS. The assessee had disclosed long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.2,28,46,317/- on sale of non-agricultural land. The AO had noticed that the assessee had signed the sale deed as Power of Attorney holder and he was neither the owner nor having possession of the land. Therefore, he treated the LTCG as disclosed by the assessee as income from other source. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2017 at total income of Rs. 2,75,75,530/-.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld CIT (Appeals) and may please be directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard 2. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld A.O in taxing the amount of Rs 2,74,47,600/- on sale of land bearing R S. No. 955, at Gotri, Vadodara as Income from Other Source on the ground that the appellant was not assigned

ITA No. 2291/Ahd/2025 Bhupendra Shantilal Shah Vs DCIT, AY- 2015-16 3 any right on the said land nor did the appellant take possession of the land and hence cannot be said to have the ownership of the said land against an amount of Rs. 2.28.46,317/- as Long Term Capital Gain offered by the Appellant on sale of said land. It is prayed that taxing of Rs 2,74.47,600/- as Income from Other Source is erroneous in law and in facts and the LTCG of Rs. 2,28 46 317/- offered by the appellant be accepted as correct. 3 The Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing the cost of acquisition of the plot of land amounting to Rs.24,22,720/- The impugned disallowance of Rs 24,22.720/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be allowed 4 The Ld CIT(A), NFAC has further erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not allowing the indexation of cost of acquisition of the plot of land 5 Your appellant craves liberty to add alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.

Shri Hemant Suthar, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted, at the outset, that the assessee could not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken on merits. He explained that the notices of the Ld. CIT(A) were received by the erstwhile counsel who neither complied before him nor ever informed the assessee in this regard. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity for making compliance by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra, Sh. Kalpesh Rupavatia, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. However, he had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

We have considered the submissions of the assessee. It is found that the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in spite of 3 opportunities provided by him during the period from 14.01.2021

ITA No. 2291/Ahd/2025 Bhupendra Shantilal Shah Vs DCIT, AY- 2015-16 4 to 16.06.2024. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). When the assessee had filed the appeal, it was his responsibility to enquire about the on-going proceedings before the CIT(A) and ensure that proper compliance was made. It was the duty of the assessee to watch his affairs before the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the pending appeal, still no care was exercised to enquire about the status of appeal and the assessee has only tried to shift the responsibility on his counsel. The assessee cannot escape by placing the blame on the counsel. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which should be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to make compliance and to bring on record the evidences in support of the grounds as taken. The assessee is also directed to comply before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding. In case the assessee does not make compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to decide the matter on merits on the basis of materials available on record.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 04/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 04th August, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy)

ITA No. 2291/Ahd/2025 Bhupendra Shantilal Shah Vs DCIT, AY- 2015-16 5

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 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 उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

BHUPENDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments