TARINDERDEEP KAUR,SIRHIND, FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NWR-W-47-95), SIRHIND FATEHGARH SAHIB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 227/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 October 2026AY 2012-139 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive grounds raised by the assessee, dismissing the appeal solely on the issue of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the factual material presented by the assessee regarding discrepancies in her identity and address between PAN particulars and the registered sale deed. However, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate on the legal consequences of these discrepancies, including the validity of reopening and service of notices, leaving these issues open. Instead, the Tribunal found it necessary to verify a limited factual aspect concerning the computation of capital gain, specifically the assessee's claim of a cost of acquisition of ₹4,22,200/-, which was stated to be disclosed in the computation of income. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with specific directions to examine the return, verify the cost of acquisition from supporting documents, provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and recompute the taxable capital gain accordingly. The Tribunal clarified that no addition would be sustained to the extent of the duly verified cost of acquisition. All other legal and jurisdictional grounds were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tarinderdeep Kaur, filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against an assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment order resulted in an addition of ₹5,75,000/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on 14.11.2025 on the ground of delay, noting that the appeal was filed 123 days late. The assessee contended that the assessment order was contrary to law and facts, that notices were not properly served, and that the capital gain had been disclosed. The assessee also raised issues regarding discrepancies in her identity and address between PAN particulars and the sale deed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the substantive grounds on merits, particularly when the assessee raised fundamental objections regarding the validity of the assessment proceedings due to alleged non-service of notices and discrepancies in identity and address. Assessee's contentions: - The assessment order is contrary to law and facts. - Requisite notices were not served upon the assessee, rendering the notice under section 148 invalid. - The Assessing Officer completed the assessment without proper verification. - The assessee had filed the return of income and disclosed the capital gain. - There were material discrepancies in the assessee's name and address between PAN particulars and the registered sale deed, leading to non-service of notices at the correct address. - The reopening was based on an incorrect factual premise, and the assessment order suffered from non-application of mind. - The cost of acquisition of ₹4,22,200/- was disclosed in the return of income. - Without prejudice to legal objections, the matter may be restored for verification of the cost of acquisition. Revenue's contentions: - The assessee's name appeared in non-PAN information available with the ITO, justifying the Assessing Officer's actions. - The Assessing Officer rightly brought to tax 50% of the income/sale consideration. - No interference is called for in the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH, ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Bansal, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

Digitally signed ANUP by ANUPAMA GHERA AMA Date: Assistant Registrar 2026.10.22 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal GHERA 16:39:12 Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, +05'30' Chandigarh.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →