VASANTHA KALYANASONDARAM,SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. WARD 8(1) CHE, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3690/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vasantha Kalyanasondaram The Income Tax Officer No.138, M.G.R.Street vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1) Kaveri Rangan Nagar Chennai. Saligramam S.O., Saligramam Chennai – 600 093. [PAN: FHJPK0739K] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Sailesh Bhandari, CA प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing : 01.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”], u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

:-2-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025

:-3-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025 of income. Further, the assessee also requested to refer the case to the Valuation Officer as per sec.50C of the Act. 5. The claim of the assessee was rejected b y the AO in respect of the value to be adopted as per sale agreement. However, referred the matter to the Valuation Authority on 17.03.2023 for determination of value of the property as on 06.05.2015. The AO concluded the assessment by considering sec.50C valuation of the property as Rs.18,75,98,985/- and arrived the long term capital gain of Rs.18,52,15,715/- by passing an order u/s.147 of the Act dated 27.03.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority though the ld.CIT(A) provided four opportunities as shown in para 4.2 of the ld.CIT(A) order from 16.10.2023 to 18.04.2024. Hence, the ld.CIT(A)left with no option, confirmed the order of the AO by passing an order dated 13.01.2015. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not participated before the ld.CIT(A) for the reason explained in the affidavit and hence prayed for one more opportunity by remitting the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A). 8. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had given four opportunities, inspite of it, the assessee is negligent in participation of appellate proceedings, hence, prayed for confirming the same. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The primary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the assessment ex parte without adjudicating the issues on merits, as the assessee could not effectively participate in the appellate proceedings owing to the circumstances explained in the affidavit filed before this Tribunal.

:-4-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025 10. The undisputed facts reveal that the assessee, a senior citizen aged about 73 years, along with her spouse, jointly owned the immovable property which was sold during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Pursuant to the reopening of the assessment, the assessee filed her return of income declaring long-term capital gains after claiming indexed cost of acquisition and improvement. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee specifically contended that the sale consideration had been fixed under an agreement to sell executed in the year 2010 and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C ought to have been applied by considering the value prevailing on the date of the agreement. The assessee had also specifically requested the AO to make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer u/s.50C of the Act. 11. The AO, however, rejected the assessee's contention regarding adoption of the agreed sale consideration, referred the matter to the Valuation Officer only towards the end of the assessment proceedings and proceeded to complete the assessment by adopting the stamp duty value of Rs.18,75,98,985/- as against the declared sale consideration of Rs.4,95,50,000/-, resulting in substantial enhancement of the taxable long-term capital gains. 12. It is further evident from the record that although the ld.CIT(A) had granted four opportunities to the assessee, no effective representation was made and consequently the appeal came to be dismissed by substantially affirming the findings of the AO. Before us, the assessee has explained, by way of an affidavit, that being an elderly lady suffering from age-related ailments and simultaneously taking care of her ailing husband, who was living separately, she could not effectively monitor the electronic communications issued by the Department nor coordinate with her counsel for prosecuting the appeal before the first appellate authority.

:-5-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025 13. We have carefully considered the explanation offered by the assessee. Though there was non-participation before the ld.CIT(A), we find that the issues involved in the present appeal are substantial and require detailed factual as well as legal examination. The controversy pertains to the applicability of section 50C, the effect of an earlier agreement to sell allegedly executed in the year 2010, the determination of fair market value through the Departmental Valuation Officer and the computation of long-term capital gains. These issues cannot be appropriately adjudicated without examining the relevant agreements, valuation records and other supporting evidence. 14. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right, and the first appellate authority is expected to adjudicate the issues after granting an effective opportunity of hearing. Although the assessee cannot be completely absolved of her responsibility in not responding to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A), at the same time, having regard to her advanced age, the circumstances explained in the affidavit and the magnitude of the addition involved, we are of the considered opinion that one final opportunity deserves to be granted in the interest of substantial justice. 15. We are also conscious of the fact that the assessment involves important legal contentions raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of section 50C in the light of an earlier agreement to sell as well as the valuation mechanism prescribed under the Act. Since these issues have not been examined by the ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submissions and supporting materials, it would be appropriate to restore the matter to the first appellate authority rather than adjudicate the same for the first time at this stage. 16. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State

:-6-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025 Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the ld.CIT(A) at the time of commencement of the set-aside proceedings. Upon compliance with the aforesaid direction, the ld.CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to place all relevant documents, including the agreement to sell, valuation reports, documentary evidence in support of the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement, and all other materials that may be relevant for proper adjudication of the issues. The ld.CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to extend full cooperation during the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate, the ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record. 17. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुिधर्थध) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखधसदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्िई/Chennai, ददिधंक/Dated, the 08th July, 2026. Devadas

:-7-: ITA. No3690/Chny/2025 आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलधर्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. पवभधगीय प्रनतनिधर्/DR 5. गधर्ा फधईल/GF DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.07.09 16:47:37 +05'30'