SHRI DHEERENDAR RAJ BHANDARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-4(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present their case with supporting documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2011-12 despite notice. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information of property sale and made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 r.w. Section 147. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's request for additional evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, dated 30.08.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.
The issue involved in this appeal is relating to sale of property and earning of Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer got the information that during the financial year 2010-11, the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of ₹.48,00,000/-. Hence, the 2 assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018 and served on 28.03.2018. No return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Again, the assessee was asked to produce certain details and documents on or before 25.10.2018. However, the assessee has not complied with the above notice under section 142(1) of the Act. None of the details and documents called for was produced. Another notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 26.10.2018. Thereafter, one more notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 22.11.2018 calling for the details and documents. However, the assessee has not complied with any of the notices issued. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act on 19.12.2018. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed certain details with supporting documents and requested for admission of the same as additional evidence. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the admission of additional evidence and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on 3 behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders authorities below. We find that though the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer, the assessee wants to file the details in respect of long term capital gains before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) denied to admit the additional evidence. We find that in view of principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate his case on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after considering the details filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the details as may be required by the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026