Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, who did not file a return under Section 139(1), was issued a notice under Section 148. The case involved the sale of an immovable property where the consideration in the registered sale deed was significantly lower than in the initial agreement to sell. The Assessing Officer added the assessee's proportionate share as undisclosed capital gain.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and that the assessee's share of consideration was not categorically taken into account. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verifying all relevant details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on the merits of the case, particularly concerning the addition of capital gains based on an agreement to sell versus a registered sale deed.
Sections Cited
147, 139(1), 148, 142(1), 250(6), 153C, 45, 2(47)(v), S3A, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
आदेश/O R D E R
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity of being heard before disposal of the matter to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO, The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Godhra ("the AO") in passing the order which is invalid in law and therefore liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to the above: Invalid Appellate Proceedings:
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in passing an appellate order without considering grounds of appeals and Statement of Facts submitted by the appellant.
4. That the learned CIT(A) failed to discharge the appellate duty vested under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by not passing a reasoned and speaking order dealing with each of the grounds and contentions raised, thereby rendering the order bad in law.
5. That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of issuing notice under section 147 based on search material as it has to be assessed under section 153C of the Act. Without prejudice to the above: Addition u/s 45-Rs. 56,98,305;
6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in treating the transaction taxable in current year based on banakhat (Agreement to Sale) invoking provisions of section 45 of the Act whereas Sale Deed was executed in the AY 2021-22.
7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in making addition of Rs. 56,98,305 in the AY 2018-19 without satisfying conditions of transfer under clause 2(47)(v) read with Section S3A ТРА. Other Grounds:
8. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act.
Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.
The assessee did not file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2022. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 02.03.2024 declaring total income at Rs. Nil and agricultural income of Rs. 1,81,500/-. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted his reply dated 03.03.2023, stating that he, along with five co-owners, had sold an immovable property to Shri Jigneshkumar A. Shah vide Banakhat/Agreement to Sell dated 16.03.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 3,54,28,320/-. However, the registered sale deed was executed later on 21.10.2020 for a consideration of Rs. 7,65,000/- Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 3,46,63,320/- between the consideration mentioned in the sale agreement and that in the registered sale deed. The consideration was allegedly received in cash by the five co-owners. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the proportionate share of the assessee, amounting to Rs. 56,98,305/-, treating it as undisclosed capital gain.
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We observe that there is a delay of 198 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, has stated that he is a resident of a village not conversant with modern means of communication such as internet, e-mail, or sms and does not have adequate knowledge of English language and therefore was 4 unable to access emails/sms or respond to notices. In view of these reasons, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay. The explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be genuine, and accordingly, the delay is condoned. The Ld. AR submitted that although notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not respond as he is not computer-savvy and does not understand the English language. The Ld. AR further prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits.
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that although the Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee and the five co-owners had sold the land, the assesee’s share of consideration which was derived for making addition was not categorically taken into account after verifying all the necessary documents which were submitted by the assessee. We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case. Since the matter has not been adjudicated on merits, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verifying all relevant details furnished by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
5 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.12.2025 at Ahmedabad.