LALITA RANI,NISSING KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, KARNAL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper application of mind and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the evidences. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a housewife, had an ex-parte assessment order passed under section 147 due to purchase of immovable property. She claimed statutory notices were not served, and her appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed summarily.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without proper examination of evidence and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
आदेश / ORDER
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 07.03.2024 arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the order before the ld. AO was passed ex-parte and that the ld. First Appellate Authority also dismissed its appeal summarily and therefore the matter may be considered for remand to Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel submitted brief factual matrix in as much as the assessee is house-wife and her case was exposed to action u/s 147 on account of purchase of immovable property for Rs.51,17,500/-. The ld. Counsel submitted that compliance could not be made before the ld. AO on account of the fact that statutory notices were not served upon the assessee. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that it had purchased two immovable properties cumulatively aggregating to Rs.75,74,050/-. Necessary evidences in support thereof were filed. It was stated that the purchase was sourced through sale of ancestral property. The ld. CIT(A) however proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that reported facts were inconsistent. 3. Heard rival parties. Case file perused. 4. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee being house-wife and an illiterate lady was prevented by justified causes to present her case before the ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that it attempted to give the requisite details before the ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Counsel tried to give requisite details to the ld. CIT(A) but he choose to reject them summarily and proceeded to dismiss the appeal, without any application of mind. 5. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. 6. It is undisputed facts on record that the assessee had not appeared before the Ld. AO compelling him to pass an ex-parte order. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee produced certain evidences and the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal by unilaterally considering the impugned evidences. There is nothing on record to suggest that the ld. AO was given any opportunity to examine the said evidences being the first adjudicating authority. We have noted that the conclusions drawn by ld. CIT(A) are one sided. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non- compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th June, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.06.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,
Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026