DILIP TANK,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 823/JODH/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was preferred against the order dated 16.03.2026, passed by the NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment, however, does not contain any discussion or findings on the merits of the case, nor does it record the arguments presented by either the assessee or the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal has not decided the issue regarding the validity of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) or the correctness of the NFAC's order. No operative directions or relief granted are mentioned, and no issue was expressly left undecided as the core matter was not adjudicated.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilip Tank, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 03.11.2014, declaring an income of Rs. 2,55,040/-. During the relevant period, the assessee purchased an immovable property for a face value of Rs. 30,00,000/- from M/s Mahalaxmi Bhojanalaya and Vishrani Grih. The appeal before the Tribunal is against the order dated 16.03.2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not specify the authority that passed the original order under Section 271(1)(c) nor the amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal against the order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the Tribunal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. DCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2014-15) DILIP TANK INCOME TAX OFFICER, W- 147, Gayatri Nagar Badgaon 2(1) Udaipur. Udaipur-313001 PAN No. ACSPT6708L Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain Advocate (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. DCIT-DR (Virtually) Date of Hearing 10 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16.03.2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] wherein the appeal of the assessee, against order u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter, referred as the ‘Act’), was dismissed.

2.

Facts of the case may be chronologically narrated as that the appellant filed return of income on 03.11.2014 declaring income of

2 ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2014-15 Rs.2,55,040/-. During the period relevant to assessment year under consideration, the appellant had purchased an immovable property from M/s Mahalaxmi Bhojanalaya and Vishrani Grih, Prop. Shri Amrit Lal S/o Shri Khem Raj, R/o Udaipur for a face value of Rs.30,00,000/-. However, the Sub-Registrar-1, Udaipur has valued the property for stamp duty purposes at Rs.51,34,345/- vide registered sale deed dated 12.08.2013. Accordingly, there is a difference of Rs.21,34,345/-, which is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(il) of the Act and being 1/3rd share in the ownership of the property, Rs.7,11,448/- is chargeable to tax in appellant’s hands. Besides, face value of the property being purchased by the assessee is Rs.30,00,000/. Being 1/3 share in the ownership of the property, he had invested Rs.10,00,000/- during the year and shown income of Rs.2,55,040/-. Therefore, the Learned AO having reason to believe that income of the appellant to the extent of Rs.17,11,448/- had escaped income, initiated proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act, in accordance with law and in assessment proceedings, the Learned AO observed that, he was left with no option but to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, as the appellant did not furnished anything about the sources of the investments as mentioned above, despite specific query vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. In pursuance thereto, a show cause

3 ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2014-15 notice issued on 04-12-2019 and at the completion of proceedings, the Learned AO computed income of the appellant as Rs. 20,68,488/-. Aggrieved upon, appellant challenged it by way of appeal, which was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A), thereafter, the appellant before us.

3.

Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on record.

4.

Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal by observing that no submission made by appellant in response to notices of hearing issued during the pendency of appeal and dismissed the appeal without considering facts narrated in form 35 and grounds of appeal and confirmed the order, merely based on the order of the Learned AO without independently examining the legal merits of the case, whereas the order passed u/s 144 read with 147 of the Act is ex parte.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon orders passed by both lower authorities.

6.

We find, the grievance of the appellant is that the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the premise that no submissions were filed by

4 ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2014-15 the appellant, whereas the appellant had, in fact, furnished replies in response to the notices issued during the pendency of the appellate proceedings. It has also been contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised in Form No. 35 on merits. The Learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant was given many opportunities by way of notices, which is shown in tabular form in impugned order, but the appellant refrained from submitting response, explanations or documentary evidences and same also in penalty proceedings

7.

On the basis of fact situation as above and the material placed before us, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The appellate authority, being the fact-finding authority, is under a statutory obligation to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order after considering the grounds raised and the material available on record and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision u/s 250(6) of the Act. Even where the appellant remains absent, the appeal cannot be dismissed for non- prosecution simpliciter; rather, the issues raised are required to be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.

5 ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2014-15 8. Accordingly, in order to achieve the goal of justice and to ensure disposal of issues on merit, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire matter back to the file of Learned AO with a direction to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and appellant is also directed to extend full cooperation and file all necessary submissions and evidences as required.

9.

Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.

Order pronounced on 27 / 10 / 2026 in open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 27/ 10 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A)

6 ITA No. 823/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2014-15 (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:56:30 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →