CRUZJOHN PETER JEROME DCRUZ,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT, WARD 1(2), TPR, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1213/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 April 2026AY 2016-20173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity due to their senior citizen status and reliance on a tax consultant. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold property for Rs. 77,50,000/-, with their share being Rs. 25,83,333/-. The AO reopened the assessment due to a discrepancy between the sale consideration and registered value, adding Rs. 15,40,191/- as LTCG. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of Long Term Capital Gains was justified, and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 131(1A),Section 148,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 27.04.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,31,200/-. On the basis of information received from DDIT (Investigation) and enquiry u/s. 131(1A) of the Act conducted in the residential premises of Shri K. Kanagaraj, the A.O

ITA No.1213/Chny/2026 Cruzjohn Peter Jerome Dcruz :- 2 -:

noticed that the assessee has sold certain property for a consideration of Rs.77,50,000/- out of which the assessee's share works out to Rs. 25,83,333/-. Since the registered value of the property is much lower than the sale consideration, the A.O had reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice reopening the assessment. The assessee in response submitted that the income from the sale of the land is already declared as part of the return and therefore declared the same income while filing the return in respond to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O subsequently called on the assessee to furnish various details pertaining to the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as declared by the assessee and the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond properly to the notices, the A.O based on the available information recomputed the LTCG to make an addition of Rs. 15,40,191/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and not well versed with the income tax proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was entirely dependent on the tax consultant who did not provide proper support and hence the assessee could not represent the case properly. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore, remit the appeal back to the A.O for fresh

ITA No.1213/Chny/2026 Cruzjohn Peter Jerome Dcruz :- 3 -:

consideration of the impugned addition/s by calling for relevant details as may be required to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The assessee directed to file any further details as may be called for with regard to the impugned addition/s made by the AO and cooperate with assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य / Judicial Member �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 30th April, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.05.06 NARESH 10:37:20 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 131(1A)

All 443 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →