PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI
1
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश कुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ
BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM &
SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos: 685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
(िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar,
Gandhi Chowk, Kurud,
Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh.
Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari,
Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai,
Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh.
PAN: AQDPC2033J
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by :
Shri Veekas S Sharma, CA
राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by :
Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
05/03/2026
घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement
:
12/03/2026
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
These appeals for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2015-16 filed by the assessee are directed against orders dated 12.03.2025 and 30.03.2025 (even dated in both penalty appeals) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal
Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (‘Act’).
The appellant assessee has raised following grounds in ITA No.685/RPR/2025: -
“1. The order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC Delhi is liable to be quashed and set aside inasmuch as all the notices issued u/s 250 are non-est,
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
2
that is to say, do not exist in the eyes of law inasmuch as time allowed to file the response was less than 15 days on all the occasions which renders the notices non-est, thus, the passing of order by NFAC without issuing notice u/s 250 allowing at-least 15 days’ time to respond is illegal, arbitrary, bad-in-law and therefore may kindly be quashed.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in passing an ex parte order for want of prosecution confirming the additions/disallowances without affording the assessee a sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, having been passed without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, is unjust, illegal, and bad in law.
It is therefore prayed that the order be set aside.
3. The notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.03.2022 by the Juri ictional
Assessing Officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
in view of Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, such notice ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. As the notice was issued after the notification came into effect, it is bad in law, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings under Section 147 void ab initio.
4. The assessment order is illegal, bad in law, and void ab initio, as the Learned
AO failed to annex the prior approval of the specified authority along with the notice issued u/s 148 which is in gross violation of CBDT Guidelines No.
F.No.299/10/2022-Dir(Inv.III)/611 dated 01.08.2022, particularly Para 2.2, which mandates that such approval be furnished to the assessee along with the notice. Non-compliance with the said directive renders the reassessment proceedings void and unsustainable in law.
5. The assessment order passed under Section 1448 r.w.s. 144 is illegal, bad in law, and void ab initio, as the mandatory requirement u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been complied with. The show cause notice under Section 148A(b) dated 16.03.2022 was issued granting the assessee time to respond only up to 23.03.2022, thus, provided less than the statutorily required minimum of seven days' notice, in clear violation of the express
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
3
provision that mandates 'not less than seven days' to respond. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the assessment order passed pursuant thereto are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
6. The Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,24,46,500/- made by the Learned AO on the incorrect and arbitrary assumption that the assessee had received the entire consideration from the sale of a capital asset amounting to Rs.1,24,46,500/-, whereas, the land in question was a co-owned rural agricultural land, and the assessee's share therein was limited to Rs.20,75,666/- only, moreover, the land does not qualify as a capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence does not attract capital gains tax. The initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on non-existent fact and factually incorrect premise is, therefore, bad-in-law and the consequent addition is unsustainable.
7. The Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,973/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other
Sources," despite the fact that the said amount falls below the basic exemption limit. The addition is therefore unjustified, contrary to the facts on record, and bad in law
8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and /or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal."
1 In ITA No.686/RPR/2026, following grounds have been raised: “1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. The addition made on account of alleged capital gains is based merely on an incorrect and unfounded assumption that the assessee received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,46,500/-, whereas, in reality, the assessee's share in the co-owned rural agricultural land was only Rs.20,75,666/-, and such land does not ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
4
constitute a "capital asset" within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.
Hence, the penalty so initiated and/or imposed is bad-in-law and may kindly be cancelled.
2. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the imposition of penalty in an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without independently deciding the grounds on merit and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) is liable to be declared as illegal and bad-in-law. It is prayed that the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be declared as illegal and bad-in-law on account of violation of principles of natural justice.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.”
2 In ITA No.687/RPR/2025, following grounds have been raised: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) on account of non-compliances of statutory notices issued and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, as the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from making compliance, as such, the penalty is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be cancelled.
Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the imposition of penalty in an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
5
independently deciding the grounds on merit and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) is liable to be declared as illegal and bad-in-law. It is prayed that the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be declared as illegal and bad-in-law on account of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.”
The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee has not filed any Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year. However, the assessee has sold an immovable property worth of Rs.1,24,46,500/- during the relevant year. Based on the information that the assessee had not offered any Capital Gains for taxation, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) re-opened the case under section 148 of the Act. The assessee had not ensured any compliance during the re-opened assessment proceedings; therefore, the Ld. AO taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,24,46,500/- of the immovable property along with interest of Rs.13,973/- getting reflected in Form-26AS of the assessee. Consequentially, re-opened assessment was completed at income of Rs.1,24,60,473/- under section 147 rws 144 and 144B of the Act. Consequent to the assessment, the Ld. AO, later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed all these appeals due to non-prosecution.
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
Before us, Shri Veekas S Sharma, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex-parte due to non-prosecution. He prayed for remanding all the cases back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of orders of the Authorities below, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she prayed for dismissing all these appeals. However, she reluctantly admitted for remanding these cases back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the records. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided any of appeals pending before him/her after discussing the issues in detail and his/her reasons for agreeing with the assessment order and penalty orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. We are very much surprised to see that the assessee has provided the details of property co-owned by him along with the copy of the sale deed. Further, the assessee has made available the facts that the said land was agricultural land and situated far away from the Municipal limit. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not applied
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
7
his mind in taxing the Capital Gains, if any rather than taxing the entire sale consideration as income. It is painful to see such appellate order.
It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.).
We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliances consistently in all cases before the Authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the cases in casual manner and the said orders are non-speaking. None of the cases have been decided on the merits though the sufficient material were before him/her. Considering the facts of all these cases in entirety, in the interest of justice and without offering any comment on merit of these cases, we deem it fit to set aside all the three impugned orders and remand the matters back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding these three cases afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
8
accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.
In view of the above, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above.
ITA No. 685, 686 & 687 & 446/RPR/2025:
In view of the above, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/03/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA)
Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER
लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 12/03/2026
HKS, PS
आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
////
(Private Secretary)
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent
3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.)
4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur
5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.
ITA Nos.685, 686 & 687/RPR/2025
Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari
Date
1
Draft dictated on 05.03.2026
Sr.PS/PS
2
Draft placed before author
06.03.2026
Sr.PS/PS
3
Draft proposed and placed before the second Member
JM/AM
4
Draft discussed/approved by second Member
AM/JM
5
Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS
Sr.PS/PS
6
Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS
7
Date of uploading of order
Sr.PS/PS
8
File sent to Bench Clerk
Sr.PS/PS
9
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
10
Date on which file goes to the A.R.
11
Date of dispatch of order