GANGORTI SHARMA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD I(2), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7259/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 March 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the facts in the assessee's case to be 'peri materia' (substantially the same) to the facts in the case of Geeta Sharma (supra). In the Geeta Sharma case, the Division Bench had restored the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, considering that the assessment was framed ex parte due to non-receipt of notice and the assessee was an agriculturist without taxable income. The Tribunal, following this precedent, restored the issue back to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to notices served by the AO without fail. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition itself but rather the procedural fairness of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gangotri Sharma, is appealing an order dated 23.09.2025 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal challenges the addition of Rs.21,90,100/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. During the relevant period, the assessee co-purchased property for Rs.1,02,43,000/-. No return of income was filed by the assessee. A notice under Section 148 was issued, to which the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 144, adding the assessee's 1/5th share of the investment. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding no documentary evidence for the source of investment. The assessee claims non-receipt of notices prevented participation in assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.21,90,100/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the source of investment being sale proceeds of agricultural land. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings because no notice was ever served. - The source of investment was the sale proceeds of agricultural land sold by the assessee's husband. - Relied on the Division Bench order in ITA No.2821/Del/2022 (Geeta Sharma vs. AO) for AY 2012-13, which remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo adjudication in similar circumstances (assessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144). Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue other than their presence through the Sr. DR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Keshav Garg, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16/12/2025Pronounced: 12/03/2026

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee in appeal has assailed findings of the CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.21,90,100/- u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee along with other four persons had purchased property for Rs.1,02,43,000/-. No return of income was filed by the assessee for impugned assessment year. On the basis of information received from the office of Deputy Registrar, notice

u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices. In absence of any explanation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.21,90,100/- u/s.69 of the Act, that is to the extent of assessee’s 1/5th share in the total investment. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). Since no cogent documentary evidences were filed by the assessee to back the source of investment, the CIT(A) upheld the addition.

3.

Both sides heard. The source of investment in property purchased by the assessee is stated to be sales proceeds of agricultural land sold by husband of the assessee. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee could not participate in assessment proceedings as no notice was ever served on the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of one of the co-purchasers has remitted the issue back to the AO as in that case also the assessment was made u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. The ld. Counsel placed on record copy of the Tribunal order in for AY 2012-13 in the case of Geeta Sharma vs. AO decided on 05.07.2024.The Division Bench allowed the said appeal for statistical purpose holding as under:-

“4. It is not in dispute that the assessment was framed ex parte as the assessee was not in receipt of notice from the ld AO. Assessee does not have any taxable income as such being an agriculturist, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to restore the appeal to the file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file further evidences, if any, in support of her contentions. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”

I find facts in the case of assessee peri materia to facts of the case of Geeta Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the issue is restored back to the AO for denovo assessment, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 12th day of March, 2026.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →