ARABIA BEEVI,KUTTALAM vs. ITO WARD-2, KUMBAKONAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee or considering their written submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property for a consideration lower than the guideline value and did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment with additions, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and considered their submissions before passing the order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, dated 18.01.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 360 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition to condone the delay. Since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
In this case, as per the information with the Department, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has sold an immovable property, which was a capital asset liable for capital gain tax, by way of a registered sale document No. 1470/2006 dated 20.09.2006 for a sale consideration of ₹.27 lakhs as against the guideline value of ₹.74,42,000/-. As the assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 and the above sale transaction attracts the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was issued to the assessee calling for return of income. After following due procedure and considering the submissions of the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 16.03.2015 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.37,47,060/- after making various additions. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the assessment order.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through RPAD on record. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). By raising specific ground in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was also submitted in the grounds of appeal that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order in a hasty manner without considering the written submission made vide letter dated 14.01.2019 by the assessee. However, we do not find any details in the appellate order about the filing of written submissions by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and furnish complete details for adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th October, 2022 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026