AMIN ABDUL WAHAB KASKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 282/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 June 2025Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded (for statistical purposes)

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 123-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's senior citizen status and dependence on a tax consultant. As the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present arguments on the legal validity of the assessment and the claim for Section 54F deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2012-13 was reopened under Section 147 and assessed under Section 143(3), leading to an addition of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property and denial of Section 54F deduction. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed this assessment ex-parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order issued without a DIN is valid; whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F on Long Term Capital Gain; and the procedural propriety of the ex-parte order by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 54F,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Hearing: 18.06.2025Pronounced: 20.06.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, AM:

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 09.07.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 framed on 06.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri.

2.

When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even on the previous occasions, when the case was fixed for hearing on 12.03.2025 and 20.05.2025 none appeared physically/virtually even after valid notice of hearing were sent to the assessee. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of available records and the assistance of Ld. DR.

3.

Registry informed that there is a delay of 123 days. Application for condonation of delay dated 29.01.2025 has been filed. On perusal of the same, I notice that the assessee is stated to be senior citizen and his mobility is restricted and not a regular income tax filer. Further, the assessee has claimed that he is not well versed by using the technology and is fully dependent on the tax consultant. I find merit in the reasons stated by the assessee in the condonation application and in view of the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) INSC 382 dated 21.03.2025 and also in the larger interest of justice, taking a liberal approach, so that the issue on merit can be examined and also observing that the assessee would not have gained by delaying in filing of the instant appeal, condone the delay of 123 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CTTIA), NFAC erred in not quashing the assessment order dated 06.12.2019 which is issued without DIN which is a mandatory requirement at the relevant time.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Ratnagiri (hereinafter referred to as the AO) of not allowing deduction u/s 54F from the Long Term Capital Gain arising from sale of land. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant the deduction u/s 54F. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

5. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6. I have heard Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee, who is an individual, his case selected for scrutiny on account of information about the transactions of sale of immovable property by the assessee along with other persons for a consideration of Rs.1.10 crore. After validly serving the statutory notices, reassessment proceedings were carried out. There was partial compliance by the assessee and Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings after making the addition for long term capital gain at Rs.11,79,635/- and assessed the income at Rs.11,80,305/-.

7.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to make any compliance on nine occasions on the dates of hearing mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC thus passed an ex-parte order. Considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee being a senior citizen and the transaction related to sale of immovable property along with other persons, I deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to go before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make necessary submission with regard to legal issue raised in ground of appeal no.1 as well as on merits raised in ground no.2. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide all the issues raised in the instant appeal by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →