TEJAL AMITBHAI TAPIAWALA,BHARUCH, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BAHRUCH, GUJARAT

There are delays of 19 / 26 days in filing these appeals. Having regard to the averments made by assessee/appellant in the applications/affidavits filed for condonation of delays, we are satisfied that there exists a “sufficient cause” for occurrence of delays. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delays and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are such that the assessee- individual filed his return of income of AY 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,98,820/- which was assessed. Subsequently, the Ld. AO, taking into account information in his possession revealing that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 11,50,000/- (valued by stamps authority at Rs. 23,46,939/-) during the relevant year, re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 through a notice dated 30.03.2021. However, the assessee did not respond to notice. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued multiple notices u/s 142(1) but the assessee against failed to respond. Finally, the Ld. AO invoked section 144 and completed ex-parte assessment treating the full value of consideration

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that in present case, the Ld. AO has assessed the full value of consideration of Rs. 23,46,939/- as taxable capital gain. However, the taxable gain so computed is not as per provisions of the Act in as much as the Ld. AO has not granted deduction of costs as per section 48. Further, the assessee also deserves benefit of section 50C(2). Therefore, the present matter deserves to be remanded to the Ld. AO for a correct computation in terms of the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the assessee is now having in his possession, all relevant details and documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. AO. He prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of restoring this matter at the level of Ld. AO. He acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings as well as proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the lower authorities to pass ex-parte orders. It was, therefore, submitted that a suitable cost must be imposed upon assessee and

In response, the Ld. AR agreed that the assessee shall pay cost and abide by the direction issued by bench.

Considering the above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore this matter to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by assessee to Income-tax Department through a suitable challan. It is made clear that the assessee shall not claim an credit or refund of such payment in any manner. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost by assessee. ITA 462/SRT/2026 – Penalty-Appeal:

This is a Penalty-Appeal directed against the order of first appeal dated 16.12.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), which in turn arises out of the penalty-

This appeal challenges the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed by Ld. AO for non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) during assessment- proceedings. During hearing before us, the Ld. DR for revenue/respondent made a strong submission for sustenance of penalty. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for assessee could not rebut the submissions made by Ld. DR and could not show any reason for making interference with the orders of lower authorities. Therefore, we approve the orders passed by lower authorities.

Accordingly, the penalty imposed by Ld. AO is upheld and this appeal by assessee is dismissed.

In result, the quantum-appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost by assessee. The penalty-appeal is dismissed.