VISWANATHAN JAYAKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW4(5), COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee missed notices from the CIT(A) due to a changed email ID, leading to non-prosecution of the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's habitual default, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold three immovable properties for Rs.1,87,52,580/- and did not file a return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, believing income had escaped assessment, and made additions on account of short-term capital gains.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for adjudication before the CIT(A) despite prior non-prosecution, considering the reason provided for non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC)
Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The registry has noted delay of 203 days in filing the appeal.
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts are as follows:-
The assessee is an individual has sold three immovable properties to M/s. ABI Foundation Ltd. at Survey No.409, Vilankurichi village within Coimbatore municipal limits to an extent of 12.5 cents for total consideration of Rs.1,87,52,580/-. The assessee has not filed return of income. Therefore, AO has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and hence, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 09.10.2018 and further notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was also issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income and requisite details. But, the AO being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee, made addition on account of short term capital gains amounting to Rs.1,40,86,870/-.
Assessee further challenged the order of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.
Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has sent the notices, however, the assessee missed to receive notices because of changed e-mail ID, hence the appeals were not prosecuted before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed that the assessee may be provided an adequate and proper representation time to file evidence and documents, if any, to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in these cases and prayed for dismissal of the both appeals.
Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) has issued notice dated 12.10.2023 for hearing on 30.10.2023 however, in the meanwhile the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2023. Hence, none appearance by the assessee is caused by the above stated reasons. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. counsel, who appeared also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute appeal proceedings diligently.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
