HANSABEN BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2762/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made compliance before the AO and submitted a working of LTCG at Rs. 1,72,892/-, which was disclosed in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148. The AO had disallowed certain expenses and disputed the cost of acquisition, leading to a higher LTCG. The Tribunal acknowledged that the grounds taken before the CIT(A) were not adjudicated on merits due to non-compliance. Considering the assessee is a senior citizen, not conversant with online compliances, and attributing the non-compliance to the counsel's fault, the Tribunal deemed it proper to allow another opportunity. The matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(A), who was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and decide the grounds on merits. The assessee was also directed to make compliance during the set-aside proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hansaben Babubhai Patel, is appealing against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee had not filed her return of income. Her case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that she sold an immovable property for Rs. 66,00,000/- and did not offer the capital gain to tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's claim of being a 50% co-owner and her computation of cost of acquisition, disallowing transfer expenses of Rs. 4,65,000/-. The AO computed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs. 8,20,297/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,47,405/- towards LTCG on the sale of immovable property, violating principles of natural justice, given the assessee's inability to respond to notices due to not being informed and the email ID not pertaining to her (Section 250). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 6,47,405/- towards LTCG on the sale of immovable property, specifically by disallowing a portion of the stamp duty (Rs. 99,250/-) and transfer expenses (Rs. 4,65,000/-) while computing the LTCG (Section 48). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee, a senior citizen, could not make compliance before the CIT(A) due to the fault of her counsel and not being informed about the notices sent to an incorrect email ID. She seeks an opportunity to present her case on merits. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue, through the Sr. DR, supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 250,Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AR
For Respondent: Shri Tapan Kumar Chattergee, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

There was delay of 218 days in filing of this appeal. A condonation application has been filed by the assessee explaining the reason for delay. It has been explained that the assessee is a senior citizen and she was not conversant with the electronic gadgets. Therefore, she could not Hansaben Babubhai Patel Vs ITO, AY

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 →