LIKHMI CHAND SHARMA,BHARATPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the CIT(A)'s dismissal for delay and the assessee's non-cooperation. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with a directive that the assessee must comply with notices issued by the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income tax return showed a discrepancy with employer-reported salary and TDS, leading the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A, 148, and 147, adding undisclosed salary. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal due to a 242-day delay in filing and the assessee's failure to cooperate during the assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
The primary legal issues revolved around the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to a 242-day delay and the assessee's lack of cooperation during the original assessment, impacting the validity of the reassessment of undisclosed salary income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing the appellate order based on incorrect appreciation of facts and misapplication of law.
2. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has vitiated the proceedings by failing to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present his case before passing the final order, rendering the entire proceedings unjust and unsustainable in law.
3. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to consider and appreciate the facts and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant in support of his claims, resulting in an erroneous and prejudicial order.”
In this case, the assessee filed his original return for the year under consideration on 19.08.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.4,47,553/- and exempt income of Rs.7,98,605/- u/s 10 of the Act, which he later revised on 05.10.2019 by increasing the exempt income to Rs.32,98,605/-. However, information received by the Assessing Officer revealed that the assessee’s employer, GE Power, had reported salary income of Rs.41,68,416/- and deducted TDS accordingly, while the assessee had declared significantly lower income, resulting in a refund claim. Based on this discrepancy, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and issued notice under Section 148. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B on 24.03.2023, adding Rs.35,42,665/- as undisclosed salary income and determining the assessed income at Rs.48,17,220/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine citing a delay of 242 days in filing the appeal, and not finding the cause for delay as reasonable.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have perused the order of the authorities below and the material placed on record. On going through the record, we find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) in-limine citing a delay of 242 days in filing the appeal, and not finding the cause for delay as reasonable. At the same time, it is seen that the assessee has also not cooperated during the assessment proceedings and has failed to respond to statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer failing which the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate the proceeding as per the provisions of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 10
- Integrated People Development Project… vs CIT Exemptions, ChennaiITA 2970/CHNY/2026[-]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026
- Shivashankrappa Sahukar, Kalaburagi vs ITO, Ward-1, KalaburgaiITA 155/BANG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Jagrutiben Manishbhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2644/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagrutiben Manishbhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2643/AHD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Prabhakar Golkonda, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 9(1), HyderabadITA 994/HYD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
