RAJNEE DONG,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICIER, WARD THREE, DARJEELING

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.06.2019 for the AY 2014-15. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened for A.Y. year 2014–15 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the assessee to furnish her return of income. In response, the assessee filed her return of income.
Subsequently, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued calling for further details and explanations in connection with the income returned. However, the assessee failed to properly comply with the same. On the basis of information available on record, the Assessing
Officer completed the assessment and determined the total income at Rajnee Dong; A.Y. 2014-15
₹26,76,269. In doing so, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had failed to disclose long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the sale of immovable property in her return of income.
03. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal by passing an ex parte order, observing that the assessee failed to substantiate her claim or furnish supporting documents during appellate proceedings.
04. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 108 days in filing. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed a petition explaining the reasons for the delay. Considering the explanation furnished, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
05. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative fairly submitted that the assessee could not properly present her case before the CIT(A) due to certain bona fide reasons and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate her claim. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, did not seriously object to this plea.
06. We, after hearing the rival submissions and considering the material on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte, without deciding the appeal on merits. In the interest of substantial justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure proper compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and to Rajnee Dong; A.Y. 2014-15
cooperate in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
07. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2025. (SANJAY AWASTHI)
(SONJOY SARMA)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Kolkata, Dated: 03.11.2025
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.