Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2015-16. Based on departmental information, the AO treated a property sale consideration of Rs. 65.00 Lac as short-term capital gain and Rs. 29,379/- as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and considering the assessee's contention that no property was sold by them, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the addition on sale of immovable property was justified, and whether the assessee had an opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148A(b), 194H, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 20/11/2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed 147 (Idrish Khan) r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 469 days in filing the instant appeal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, which is mainly on account of assessee was not having well versed with the online system and also not aware about the dates fixed for hearing, he did not represent before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee came to know about the impugned order only after recovery proceedings are initiated. We find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal in time and the delay is not intentional and therefore adopting justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 439 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication.
(Idrish Khan) 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2015-16. Based on the information available with the Department that assessee sold a property for sale consideration of Rs. 65.00 Lac and earned commission/brokerage of Rs. 29,379/-, Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show-cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act calling explanation and to furnish the evidence, which was not done by the assessee. Therefore, assessment has been framed by the Ld. AO making addition of Rs. 65.00 Lac as ‘short term capital gain’ and Rs. 29,379/- as undisclosed income u/s. 194H of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Due to non-compliance, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO.
Learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that Ld. AO erred in making the addition on sale of immovable property despite the fact that the immovable property did not belong to nor was sold by the assessee during the financial year relevant to the assessment year, therefore, prayed for restoration of (Idrish Khan) the issues raised in this appeal to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, Ld.DR though supported the orders of the lower authorities, but did not object to the prayer of the assessee for remitting the issues to the file of Ld.JAO.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced by both sides and have thoroughly perused the material available on record. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee, it is observed that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex parte order, as the assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing before the appellate authority. It has also been contended by the assessee that no immovable property was sold during the relevant period, which, if substantiated, goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice and in order to provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the JAO for denovo adjudication. The JAO shall examine all the issues afresh, in accordance with law, after duly considering the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee. It is further directed 4 (Idrish Khan) that the Ld. JAO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order. At the same time, assessee is also advised to remain vigilant and to cooperate in the proceedings by attending hearings as required and by refraining from seeking unnecessary adjournments, except where justified by reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.