NARESH KUMAR GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 28(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8000/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed sent notices to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the assessee's non-compliance was not deliberate, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F for long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The assessee contended that notices were sent to a wrong email address.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard due to notices being sent to a wrong email address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” NEW DELHI MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8000/Del/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Naresh Kumar Garg, DCIT, S-448, Greater Kailash, Part II, Circle 28(1), New Delhi – 110 048. Delhi. v/s PAN: ADCPG3895Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA & Shri Rahul Bhardwaj, Advocate Department by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR 27.07.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2026

ORDER is 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) 2023-24.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eyes of law as well as on the facts of the case.

2 ITA No.8000/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar Garg vs. DCIT 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming to the disallowance made by the AO u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 1,16,29,934/-. (ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance despite the fact that the deduction was inadvertently claimed u/s 54F of the Act instead of 54 of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on the facts & in law in confirming the action of the AO in not giving the benefit of indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 10,89,188/-. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.

It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal belatedly beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed application along with affidavit for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and considering the rival contentions, we deem it fit to condone the delay as there being ‘sufficient cause.’ Delay condoned.

4.

The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 25.07.2023 declaring total income at Rs.28,56,770/- as ‘income from salary’, amounting to Rs.18 lakh; ‘income from house property’, at Rs.7,81,898/-; and ‘income from other sources’, amounting to Rs.2,74,875/- and had claimed exemption u/s 54F amounting to Rs.1,16,29,934/- as long-term capital gains. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through

3 ITA No.8000/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar Garg vs. DCIT CASS for having claimed large deduction u/s 54F towards sale of residential house within three years and no deemed capital gain in the ROI. After duly considering the assessee’s submission, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 06.03.2025 determining the total income at Rs.1,55,75,892/- after making an addition/disallowance of Rs.1,27,19,122/- from long-term capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide order dated 11.08.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee was non- compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the notices were issued to the wrong e-mail id which does not belong to the assessee. The ld. AR brought our attention to Form No.35 where the e-mail id specified by the assessee was different from the e-mail id to which the notice was sent by the Ld.CIT(A). Upon perusal of the same, it is evident that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notice to the wrong e-mail id, arulbansaladv@gmail.com instead of advarulbansal@gmail.com which is the e- mail id specified in Form No.35. Hence, the non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) by extending the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the First

4 ITA No.8000/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar Garg vs. DCIT Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue de novo by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide on the merits in accordance with the law thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 .07.2026.

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

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 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →