HARVINDER KAUR,KHARAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 740/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delay of 85 days, decided to condone it in the interest of natural justice and considering the background of the assessee. The Tribunal admitted the appeal and restored the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(A). The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues of the assessment were to be decided afresh by the CIT(A). No specific finding was given on the merits of the capital gains assessment as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harvinder Kaur, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal challenges an order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (CIT(A)). The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 25.03.2022. In the assessment order, the AO assessed capital gains of Rs. 150 Lacs due to a lack of representation from the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this assessment for similar reasons. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 85 days, for which condonation was sought. The assessee's counsel requested a remand to lower authorities, stating the assessee could now substantiate its case. The revenue opposed this.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the principles of natural justice and the background of the assessee? (Question of law and fact, turning on the general principles of condonation of delay and natural justice). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee, through its Learned Authorized Representative (AR), sought condonation of the 85-day delay in filing the appeal. - The AR argued that the matter should be remanded back to the lower authorities. - The assessee claimed to be in a position to substantiate its case. Revenue's Contentions: - The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) opposed the condonation of delay and the prayer for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 30.10.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022. In the assessment order, Ld. AO assessed capital gains of Rs.150 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →