Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 63 days due to the ill health of their son and personal problems. The assessee had not filed a return of income for the AY 2018-19, and the case was reopened under Section 148A(d) after the sale of immovable property and receipt of contract payments. The Assessing Officer made additions for capital gains and under Section 44AD, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days. While the assessee raised a legal ground that the notice under Section 148 was void and that the land sold was agricultural, they also conceded to non-compliance before the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A(d), 142(1), 44AD, 2(14)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
per law.
We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the delay was not deliberate and occurred due to ill health of son of assessee as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Thus, we condone the delay of 63 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing.
On merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration as per the information flagged under Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA Portal. It was noticed that the assessee had sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,11,75,000/-. Further the assessee had received contract payments of Rs. 8,18,640/- from one M/s Estrat Logistics Private Limited during the assessment year under consideration. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax
3 ITA1893/Chny/2025 Chakrapani Nagarajan Vs ITO Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 27/03/2022. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31/03/2022. However, the assessee did not file any return of income even in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act from time to time and delivered it to assessee through e-mail, however, the assessee filed only part reply alongwith enclosed copy of computation of capital gains, copy of purchase deed, copy of construction agreement and other related documents but still the return of income was not filed by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the income of the assessee by taking the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,11,75,000/- as capital gains and added to the total income of the assessee. Further the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 65,491/- under Section 44AD of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not furnish any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal raised before the ld. CIT(A). In absence of any documentary evidence and substantial response, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
1. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal.
During the appellate proceedings before us, the assessee raised a legal ground that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is void as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by Faceless
4 ITA1893/Chny/2025 Chakrapani Nagarajan Vs ITO Assessing Officer (FAO). It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the capital gains worked out by the Assessing Officer and duly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) has no basis as the land, which was sold, was an agricultural land and is exempt from income under Section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the estimation of income by the Assessing Officer under Section 44AD of the Act by computing 8% as gross profit on the total contract receipts is also not justified. The ld. AR then conceded that there was no compliance by the assessee both before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, the issue may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate the entire issue afresh.
The ld. Sr.DR, on the other hand, justified the action of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee does not deserve any leniency. On the legal ground raised by the assessee, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that the same was not objected either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) and thus, raising this issue for the first time before the Tribunal is not proper and tenable.
We have considered the rival submissions, we find it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to raise all the issues before the Assessing Officer first and provide all documents/evidences to substantiate its claim which the ld. AR of the assessee has taken before us and also undertake that the assessee will make necessary compliance before the Assessing Officer and submit all the relevant documents.
5 ITA1893/Chny/2025 Chakrapani Nagarajan Vs ITO In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.