JYOTVEER SINGH KHORANA,JAMMU vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JAMMU, JAMMU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.277/Asr/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Jyotveer Singh Khorana, 10, Vs. ITO,Ward-2(1), Idgah Road, Jammu.(J& K). Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN:-ARBPK8785E] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Appellant by Sh. Joginder Singh, CA. Respondent by Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, CIT. DR.

Date of Hearing 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore, passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 17.12.2025, which has emanated from the order of the AO, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 15.12.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal taken in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi passed order Under Section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the full facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee merely on the ground that

I.T.A. No.277/Asr/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2

the assessee has not responded to various notices issued to him from time to time which denies the principles of natural justice. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was not justified in confirming the disallowance of 40% of the cost of improvement and charged the same to long term capital gain on presumption and estimated basis. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that return was filed by the assessee disclosing income of Rs. 86,830/- (along with claim of loss on LTCG arising out of sale of residential flat amounting to Rs. 71.24 lakhs). The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was finally completed after considering the revised computation of income filed by the assessee during course of assessment, by disallowing 40% of the cost of improvement of the property claimed by the assessee and the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 26.92 lakhs (including an addition of Rs.26.05 lakhs on account of capital gains). 4. The matter carried in appeal before the Ld first appellate authority, has been dismissed in absence of any response to various notices issued by the Ld CIT (A) (as evident form para 4 of the appellate order), and the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits on the grounds contained in form 35, in absence of any submissions or explanations being filed by the assessee. 5. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memo of appeal and the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that it was

I.T.A. No.277/Asr/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3

incumbent on the part of the Ld first appellate authority to have adjudicated the grounds on merits on the basis of materials available on record, which has not been done and he prayed for an opportunity of hearing to explain his case. 6. The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld first appellate authority. 7. We have heard the rival contention and considered the materials on record. We find that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld first appellate authority for non representation without adjudication on merits which is not as per provisions of law. As such following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra ( HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), we remand the matter back to the Ld CIT (A) for adjudication on the grounds contained in form 35 on merits. 7.1 The assessee is directed to file all submissions and to fully cooperate in first appellate proceedings and the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued in email contained in form 35. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 30.07.2026 in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Akv

I.T.A. No.277/Asr/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 4

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR I.T.A.T.