Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return of income but sold immovable property and received salary. The case was reopened, and a notice under Section 148A(b) was issued. The assessee later filed a return, but did not respond to a notice under Section 143(2). The Assessing Officer computed income based on property sale and salary.
Held
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay without deciding on merits. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to be heard and to provide evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
148A, 148, 143(2), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 30/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per ground of appeal on record.
The facts of the case in brief 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. 78,75,000/-. Further the assessee had received salary of Rs. 5,90,662/-. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 28/02/2024. Subsequently, notice
2 ITA1922/Chny/2025 Arumugam Kumar Vs ITO under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 27/05/2024 declaring total income of Rs. 2,90,230/- . However, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on 09/10/2024. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed the income of the assessee as taken the entire sale consideration of Rs.
78,75,000/- as capital gains and added to the total income of the assessee.
Further the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 5,90,662/- as undisclosed salary income.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) belatedly by 30 days. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay and not decided the appeal on merit.
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 ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merit.
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.
3 ITA1922/Chny/2025 Arumugam Kumar Vs ITO
We have considered the rival submissions, we find it proper and in the interest of justice, to restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The assessee is also directed to provide all documents/evidences to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) and submit all the relevant documents. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.