SUKHBIR SINGH,RATIA, FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 2, FATEHABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1737/CHD/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sukhbir Singh, The ITO, H.No.221,Ward No. 9, बनाम Ward 2, Near Bislan Dharamsala, Fatehabad Vs. Ratia,District Fatehabad 125051 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMHPS1773J अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : S. S.Sahu, Advocate राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2026 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

1737-Chd-2025

2 behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The application of the Assessee is as under:

1737-Chd-2025

1737-Chd-2025

1737-Chd-2025

5 3 We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. The facts of the present case are that the assessee is an agriculturist deriving income primarily from agricultural operations and had deposited a sum of ₹77,00,000/- in his bank account during the financial year 2011–12. The said cash deposits were explained as arising from sale proceeds of agricultural land, unsecured loans received from close relatives amounting to ₹44,00,000/-, and agricultural income, duly supported by affidavits, land registry documents, cash flow statement and confirmations. It is further observed that the assessee had purchased agricultural land in May 2011 for a sum of ₹44,83,667/- and claimed exemption under section 54B of the Act on the basis of supporting documentary evidence. However, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 30/31.12.2019, wherein an addition of ₹41,90,330/- was made

1737-Chd-2025

6 under section 69A on the basis of assumptions and without properly verifying the evidences placed on record. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A); however, due to family disputes, lack of technical knowledge and inability to effectively comply with the proceedings on the NFAC portal, the assessee could not file the requisite submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dated 17.06.2024 dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. From the grounds of appeal raised we find that the assessee has raised multiple grounds in the present appeal but mainly contending that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex- parte in nature and, therefore, illegal and void ab initio. It has further been contended by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the addition of Rs. 41,90,330/- made under section 69A of the Act is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. The assessee has also challenged the denial of exemption under section 54B, submitting that the same has been wrongly disallowed without proper appreciation of facts. Additionally, it has been urged that the

1737-Chd-2025

7 Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper and adequate enquiry before making the impugned addition. On the basis of these contentions, the assessee has prayed that the orders passed by the lower authorities are illegal, null and void and liable to be quashed. It has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving the sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and to represent the case of the Assessee before him. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to decide the case on merit. Accordingly, a prayer was made to send the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / AO for adjudication /denovo novo assessment..

1737-Chd-2025

8 on record. Further we find that the Assessing Officer has not made proper inquiry for denial of exemptions u/s 54B of the Act to the Assessee. So, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of the considered view that an opportunity should be afforded to the Assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication de novo on merits, after duly considering the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the Assessee, as well as the material available on record. Needless to add, the Assessing Officer shall afford adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the remand proceedings. All grounds and contentions available under law are kept open. Ordered accordingly. 9. Since we have remanded the matter back to the file of the AO, therefore, we are not giving any findings on other grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

1737-Chd-2025

9 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ( KRINWANT SAHAY) ( LALIET KUMAR ) Judicial Member Accountant Member “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ Th e Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar