KUMAR MANIKANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 16.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant had sold an immovable property on 24.02.2018 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 68,34,619/-. However, the purchaser had duly submitted the tax amounting to Rs. 68,346/- u/s. 194-IA of the Act. However, the AO proceeded ex-parte u/s. 144 and assessed the income and treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 68,34,619/- as taxable long term

SA 97/Chny/2026 (Ay 2018-19) in ITA 1446 Chny 2026 Kumar Manikandan (Vs) ITO NCW 5(1) :: 2 :: capital gains. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer as no relevant documents were submitted. 3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR for the assessee has claimed that no proper opportunity has been given to assessee to submit requisite documents/evidence and AO passed ex-parte order without appreciating the facts and required evidence. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee had sold an immovable property during the year under consideration for a sale consideration of Rs.68,34,619/-. The records further reveal that tax was deducted at source u/s. 194-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.68,346/- by the purchaser in respect of the said transaction. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte u/s. 144 of the Act and treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.68,34,619/- as taxable Long-Term Capital Gain without examining the cost of acquisition, indexed cost, nature of the asset, period of holding, or any claim that may be available to the assessee under the provisions of the Act. The assessment order indicates that the addition has been made primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee and in the absence of supporting details.

SA 97/Chny/2026 (Ay 2018-19) in ITA 1446 Chny 2026 Kumar Manikandan (Vs) ITO NCW 5(1) :: 3 :: 7. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the action of the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the relevant documentary evidence during the appellate proceedings. However, from the facts placed before us, it appears that the issue has not been examined on merits by either of the lower authorities. The determination of taxable capital gains requires examination of various factual aspects including the cost of acquisition, indexed cost, nature and period of holding of the property, and any eligible deductions or exemptions available under the Act. Such exercise has admittedly not been carried out. The contention of the assessee before us is that adequate opportunity was not available to furnish the requisite documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer and that the assessment was completed ex-parte. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee for substantiating its claim with supporting evidences. 8. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all necessary details and documentary evidences as may be called for by the Assessing Officer.

SA 97/Chny/2026 (Ay 2018-19) in ITA 1446 Chny 2026 Kumar Manikandan (Vs) ITO NCW 5(1) :: 4 :: 9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Stay Application becomes infructuous. Order pronounced in open court on 16th day of June, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद�ा/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद(य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Dated: 16th June 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF