RAVEESH KANAUJIA,GURUGRAM vs. ITO-WARD 3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2980/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but also the claim of inadequate opportunity and non-consideration of evidence. It decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a residential property and claimed expenses for its construction. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses for lack of evidence and made an addition to the total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting adequate opportunity and considering evidence. Whether the AO erred in disallowing expenses without proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 48,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Shikher Garg, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 31.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” NEW DELHI MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2980/Del/2026 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Raveesh Kanaujia, ITO, 804/6 Uniworld Gardens, Ward 3(1), Sector 47, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana - 122018. v/s PAN: AAOPM4315J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Shikher Garg, Advocate Department by Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR 07.07.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2026 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in affirming the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) dated 26.03.2024, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in violating the principles of natural justice by disposing of the

2 ITA No.2980/Del/2026 Raveesh Kanaujia Vs. ITO appeal without granting adequate opportunity of being heard, despite requests for adjournment made by the appellant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO, who passed the assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice by not duly considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the addition of Rs.1,41,23,292/- made by the Ld. AO without appreciating that complete details in respect of security expenses, electrical expenses and building cost were duly furnished but were not properly considered. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be set aside as the additions have been made without proper verification of documents and evidences, warranting restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal in a summary manner without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby necessitating restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for proper verification and adjudication. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3.

The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 26.09.2022 declaring total income at 1,91,04,270/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice 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 had sold a residential property situated at 250P, Sector 38, Gurgaon for a total consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- vide two agreements where one part of the property was sold to Mrs. Poonam Kaur

3 ITA No.2980/Del/2026 Raveesh Kanaujia Vs. ITO Chadha and Mrs. Loveleen Kaur Nayyar, for a consideration of Rs.2,10,00,000/- for which TDS of Rs.2,10,000/- was deducted and with regard to the second part of the property which was sold to Shri S.R. Arora for a consideration of Rs.2,40,00,000/- for which no TDS was deducted. Further, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed a very high cost of construction for which there were various debit entries in his bank accounts which were claimed as expenses by the assessee. The Ld. AO rejected the expenses claimed by the assessee on the ground that these were not supported by documentary evidences, thereby disallowing the same. The Ld. AO, then, passed the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.3,32,27,562/-, after making an addition/disallowance of Rs.1,41,23,292/- being the difference amount in the long-term capital gain offered by the assessee of Rs.61,38,794/- after claiming deduction u/s 48 of the Act of Rs.3,88,61,206/- and that determined by the Ld. AO.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority who, wide an ex parte order, dated 27.02.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that despite multiple notices issued, the assessee was non- compliant during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the first

4 ITA No.2980/Del/2026 Raveesh Kanaujia Vs. ITO appellate proceedings for which the Ld. AR contended that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee and, further, the Ld.CIT(A) has also not considered the documentary evidences filed before him which was already there before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the appellate authority. The Ld. DR opposed to the same.

6.

On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from his side. The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate this issue de novo after duly considering the submission of the assessee and the documentary evidences filed in support of his claim. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st July, 2026 dk

5 ITA No.2980/Del/2026 Raveesh Kanaujia Vs. ITO Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Dr, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True COPY// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Delhi Benches

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →