Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH: CHENNΑΙ
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 12.01.2024 & 09.02.2024.
& 2255/Chny/2025 Seetha Balu :- 2 -: The assessee has filed condonation petitions/affidavits stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeals. We have considered the petitions/affidavits of delay in filing the appeals and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delays in both the appeals are hereby condoned.
The assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of information that the assessee, along with other co-owners, had sold an immovable property valued at Rs.1,17,00,000/-, against the market value of the said property was Rs.7,26,96,000/-, but has not filled return of income, reopened the assessment. The A.O. thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act by making additions of Rs. 17,31,269/- as income from business and profession and Rs.3,90,000/- as income under the head Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG), as the assessee had failed to file the details called for.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued.
& 2255/Chny/2025 Seetha Balu :- 3 -: 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the A.O.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that both the A.O and Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and failed to furnish requisite details. It is noted that the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the matter both before the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A). However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all the notices issued by the A.O and & 2255/Chny/2025 Seetha Balu :- 4 -: furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
: 7. This appeal relates to the levy of penalty of Rs.4,40,022/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in respect of the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Since, we have already set aside the assessment order and restored it to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment, the penalty levied on the foundation of assessment order has no leg to stand and therefore, does not survive. The A.O. shall, however, be at liberty to initiate and levy penalty while passing the fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.