GIRISH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI/, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8495/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with the CIT(A) but recognized the substantial nature of the issues involving capital gains and Section 50C. Therefore, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee jointly owned a property that was transferred, and the Assessing Officer invoked Section 50C to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to provide submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the substantial issues of capital gains and the applicability of Section 50C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (SR. AR.)
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 04.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2011–12 arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

ITA No.8495/M/2025 Girish Mehta 2. The assessee has raised grounds challenging the addition made under the head Long Term Capital Gain by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act and other connected issues. 3. The assessee, along with his two brothers, jointly owned immovable property at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, which was transferred during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 50C and computed capital gains by adopting stamp duty value as full value of consideration.

4.

The matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A). From the records, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) issued as many as eight opportunities to the assessee to file submissions and supporting evidences. However, no compliance was made by the assessee during appellate proceedings. In absence of any response, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and also confirmed the addition on merits based on material available on record.

6.

The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that though there was non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had valid explanations and evidences which could not be placed due to circumstances beyond control. It was submitted that the issue involved is substantial in nature and relates to computation of capital gains and applicability of section 50C, and the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds. The Ld. AR further submitted that similar issue in the case of co-owner has been decided by the Tribunal.

9.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted and the assessee failed to avail the same. It was contended that the assessee should not be given repeated opportunities and the We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

ITA No.8495/M/2025 Girish Mehta 11. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the record. It is an admitted position that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted as many as eight opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case. However, the assessee failed to file any submission or evidence during the appellate proceedings. At the same time, we note that the issues involved in the present appeal pertain to determination of capital gains and applicability of section 50C, which require proper appreciation of facts and evidences.

12.

We are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), more so when the issues require factual verification and adjudication.

13.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issues afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

14.

The assessee is also directed to promptly comply with notices and furnish necessary details/evidences without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

15.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 04/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary 3

ITA No.8495/M/2025 Girish Mehta

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →