BHARATHSENTHILKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. IT- NON CORP WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3285/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 July 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no substantial proceedings were held due to communication issues. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a NRI doctor, sold land for Rs. 66,33,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire sale consideration as long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the documentary evidence and whether the entire sale consideration was correctly treated as capital gain without considering co-ownership, indexation, and exemption under Section 54F.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 48,Section 2(42A),Section 139,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष एवं श्री मनु कुमार धगरर, न्याययक सदस्य BEFORE HONOURABLE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3285/Chny/2026 यनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Bharathsenthilkumar, v. Income Tax Officer , No.5/1, II Madley Street, T.Nagar, Non-Corp Ward-1(2), Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [PAN: AJLPB8271E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC, (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 09.03.2026, for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2018-19.

GROUDS OF APPEAL 1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without appreciating that substantial documentary evidence, including the sale deed, purchase deeds, and claim for exemption u/s 54F, had already been placed on record at the time of filing of the appeal in Form 35. 3. The Ld. AO and CIT(A) grievously erred in treating the entire gross sale consideration of Rs. 66,33,000/- as the long-term capital gain of the appellant without deducting the indexed cost of acquisition, in violation of Section 48 r.w.s. 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.3285/Chny/2026 (2018-19) Bharathsenthilkumar 4. That the Ld. AO further erred in assessing the entire sale consideration of Rs. 66,33,000/- as the income of the Assessee alone, without appreciating that the property was jointly owned by the appellant and his brother in equal shares of 50% each. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not examining the claim for exemption u/s 54F, despite the fact that the purchase deed of the new residential property was submitted along with Form No. 35 at the time of filing of the appeal, and the said document was available on record before the CIT(A) at all times. 6. The Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that after giving effect to (i) The 50% co-ownership of the land, (ii) Indexed cost of acquisition, and (iii) Exemption u/s 54F, the net taxable capital gain in the hands of the appellant would be negligible, and therefore the assessment of Rs. 66, 33,000/- as total income is grossly erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filer of the return u/s. 139 of the Act. As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT, the assessee has sold land for sale consideration of Rs. 66, 33, 000/- during the A.Y. 2018-19. Based on this information, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee vide dated 30.03.2022, in response to the same, the assessee has not filed any return of income and the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 of the Act r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act and the whole consideration i.e. Rs. 66.33 lakhs treated as long-term capital gain. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of non-appearance/ non-response. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us.

3.

We have gone through the order of the AO, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and the grounds taken before us. The appellant is a NRI who is working in Oman as a Doctor. The assessee has sold land for Rs. 66, 33,000/- during the A.Y. 2018-19. Before the Ld. CIT (A) stated as under: “He is not aware these notices since the mail id created by accountant and he left the job, when he recently checked the e-proceeding in IT portal he came to know about the notices served for the year 2017-18 and now he updated the mail id. The assessee sold non-agriculture land (vacant land) in all measuring 8,820 sq. ft. in the year ended 03.01.2018 for Rs. 66,33, 000/- and this land was

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.3285/Chny/2026 (2018-19) Bharathsenthilkumar purchased in the year 27.11.2008 for Rs. 14, 11, 200/-, Stamp Duty is Rs. 1, 13, 100/-, Registration fee is Rs. 14, 415 and the total value of the property is Rs. 15, 38, 852/- along with his brother’s equal share 50% contribution and its cost of indexation (1538852*272/137) for Rs. 30, 55, 239/- and capital gain for Rs. 35, 77, 761/- and his share of capital gain is Rs. 17, 88, 880/-. The assessee purchased new residential house property for Rs. 1, 06, 00, 000/- on 24.11.2017 with his wife Deepa jointly and to avail exemption under section 54F for the Assessment Year 2018-19.”

4.

As no substantial proceeding ever held in the case of the assessee before any of the authorities below because of the reasons mentioned (supra), we deem it fit to give another chance to the assessee for a proper representation of the matter before the AO, so that instead of an ex-parte order, a substantive order is there on record. In view of this, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of AO for de novo assessment of the issue and under consideration after giving a proper opportunity to be heard to the assessee as per section 282 of the Act. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time and properly participate in the proceedings before the AO without seeking any adjournment. In view of this the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार गिरर) (गगन गोयल) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (GAGAN GOYAL) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 29th July,2026. KB आदेश की प्रयतललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रयतयनधि/DR Page 3 of 4

ITA No.3285/Chny/2026 (2018-19) Bharathsenthilkumar 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →