SASMITA MOHAPATRA,MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARIPADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 567/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee's AR prayed for the matter to be restored to the AO. Considering that details were not furnished before the AO, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify whether the transaction is liable for capital gains and to examine the levy of capital gains tax, accordingly computing the capital gains. The assessee is directed to furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The ratio of this decision is that where assessment and appellate orders are passed ex-parte due to non-compliance, and the assessee expresses readiness to furnish details, the matter can be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sasmita Mohapatra, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated March 18, 2026. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee's authorized representative (AR) argued that the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity. The revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). The amount in dispute is related to capital gains.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issue of capital gains is to be decided based on the information available, or if the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 147, 144, 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance. The AR requested that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, stating the assessee's readiness to furnish required details to substantiate the case. Revenue's Contention: The ld. Sr. DR supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & G. GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR
Hearing: 07/10/2026Pronounced: 07/10/2026

1 ITA No.567/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.567/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sasmita Mohapatra, W/O Vs. ITO,, Ward-1, Baripada Kamalakanta Mohaptra, Patada, Jugpura, Mayurbhanj PAN/GIR No.ATIPM 4547 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.3.2026 in Appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10163907 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the issue in this appeal is in regard to capital gains. The assessee has filed computation of capital gains, which reads as follows:

2 ITA No.567/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “

4.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessment in this case, assessment has been completed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act as compliances were not made before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has also passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in a position to furnish the required details to substantiate the case. 5. In reply, ld Sr D.R. supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

3 ITA No.567/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the order of the first appellate authority shows that there was no compliance by the assessee before them, therefore, both the orders were passed exparte. Before us, ld AR prayed to restore the matter to the file of the AO. As the details were not furnished before the AO, the issues are restored to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the transaction is liable for capital gains and the Assessing Officer shall also examine the issue as to whether the capital gain is to be levied and accordingly compute the capital gains. The assessee is directed to furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (G. GURUSAMY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 07/10/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: Sasmita Mohapatra, W/O Kamalakanta Mohaptra, Patada, Jugpura, Mayurbhanj

2.

The respondent: ITO,, Ward-1, Baripada 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →