AMARJEET KAUR W/O SH. BALKAR SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, WARD -1, KURUKSHETRA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and decided to proceed with the appeal on merit. The assessment order was ex-parte and lacked proper documentation regarding the property purchase and its sources.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order for AY 2012-13. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by the CIT(A), and the assessee was unaware until her bank accounts were attached. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order is sustainable when it is ex-parte, lacks evidence, and the assessee was not properly notified about the dismissal of her appeal?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 26.10.2023 passed for assessment year 2012-13.
The Registry has pointed out that present appeal is time barred by 123 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It emerges out from A.Y.2012-13 2 the record that appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of prosecution. Neither its notice was served upon the assessee nor assessee could come to know about the status of the appeal. When her bank accounts were attached, only then she came to know about the dismissal of her appeal.
Considering this application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.53,09,200/- on account of alleged purchase of property whose sources are not being explained by the assessee. The assessment order is ex-parte. It does not exhibit which property was purchased and from whom it was purchased.
The AO hardly brought anything on the record for charging the assessee with tax liability.
Considering all these aspects, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to give her latest e-mail address as well as postal address A.Y.2012-13 3 and would participate with the AO in the denovo assessment proceedings. With the above observations, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
