YUNUS AHMED MANYAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2854/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without deciding on its merits, despite notices being served to the assessee. The Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, which upheld an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 147. The CIT(A) confirmed capital gain at Rs. 1,05,06,590/-, disallowing the assessee's claim of long-term capital gain of Rs. 2,38,408/- after exemption under Section 54, and dismissed the appeal *in limine* without addressing its merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal *in limine* without adjudicating on the merits of the assessee's capital gain assessment and Section 54 exemption claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Tisha Bagh, A/Rs
Hearing: 19/06/2025Pronounced: 19/06/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 25/04/2023 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2011-12.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order by summarily disposing of the appeal without going into the merits of the claims made by the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, which is illegal, bad in law and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment of capital gain at Rs. 1,05,06,590/- being gross sales proceeds of properties instead of long term capital gain offered to tax at Rs. 2,38,408/- after claiming exemption u/s. 54 of the Act.

2 4. The CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the claim made u/s. 54 of the Act and not holding that the sale of properties resulted into a long-term capital gain to the assessee. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →