Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR, and the case was selected for scrutiny regarding capital gains from the sale of property due to a mismatch in property value. The Assessing Officer completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 read with Section 144B due to non-compliance, making an addition of ₹42,30,419 for short-term capital gain. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeal. It noted that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were valid given the denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the proper computation of capital gains from the sale of property.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC dated 06.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income declaring total income of ₹3,41,740 for the relevant assessment year. The case was selected for scrutiny for verification of capital gains arising from the sale of property, as there was a mismatch between the value of the property disclosed in the ITR and that reflected in the records of the registering authority. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices calling for details and documentary evidence regarding the acquisition and transfer of the said property.
Bimal Barai However, there was no compliance from the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making an addition of ₹42,30,419 on account of short-term capital gain, as against the long-term capital loss of ₹1,12,880 claimed by the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the said appeal was dismissed ex parte for non- compliance.
The assessee has now filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal, for which a condonation application has been submitted, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the same and in the interest of justice, we are satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned, and it is accordingly condoned.
We find from the record that both the assessment order and the appellate order have been passed ex parte, without adequate opportunity being granted to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative has also not raised any serious objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.