Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against different orders for AY 2017-18. The appeals were related to additions on account of short-term capital gains and the difference between sales consideration and market price, as well as a penalty order. The appeals were filed with a delay which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal decided to remand ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025 to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Consequently, the appeals in ITA Nos. 1963/Chny/2025 (penalty order) and 1962/Chny/2025 were also treated accordingly, with the penalty appeal being remanded and the appeal in ITA No. 1962/Chny/2025 being dismissed as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable. The Tribunal also considered the condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 154, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This three appeals filed by the assessee is directed against different orders dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 respectively.
These appeals filed by same assessee involving common issue on identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear these appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up appeal in for AY 2017-18 against order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, we not that the Assessing Officer made two additions on account of short term capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, we note that the Assessing Officer made such additions in the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee, which is clear from the discussion made by the Assessing Officer in para 3.1 and 4.4 of the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, we note that the said appeal was dismissed for non-filing of any cogent evidence as regards reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which is clear from para 3 at page 3 of the impugned order.
The ld. AR Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the Assessing Officer without fail. The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT did not report any objection.
Having heard both the parties and in view of the discussion we made herein above, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer without fail and file evidence in support of his claim, if any. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. for AY 2017-18 under section 154 of the Act.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The ld. AR submits that this appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed under section 154 of the Act, which becomes infructuous in case this Tribunal remands the appeal in to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Since we have remanded the appeal in to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and after hearing the ld. DR, we treat this appeal as infructuous and dismiss the same accordingly.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The ld. AR submits that this appeal is filed against the penalty order under section 270A of the Act dated 29.09.2022 against the quantum addition under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022. The ld. AR prayed that since the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal in the present appeal filed against the penalty order may also be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer. After hearing the ld. DR, we accept the submissions of the ld. AR and remand the present appeal to the file of the Assessing officer in view of our decision in ITA No. 1964/Chny/2025. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in & 1963/Chny/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2025 at Chennai.