Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee paid Rs.12,50,000 for stamp duty on land purchase. The Assessing Officer questioned the source of funds, and the assessee provided an explanation involving funds from her father-in-law's account. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of limitation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient time for compliance and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation without proper consideration.
Sections Cited
144, 249
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2019-20 against impugned appellate order dated 22/02/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1073590575(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) Vide assessment order dated 28/02/2024, the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.12,50,000/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs.12,50,000/- was the amount of stamp duty paid by the assessee towards purchase of land. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the source of aforesaid expenditure of Rs.12,50,000/- incurred by way of stamp duty. The assessee submitted the following explanation on 18/11/2023 before the Assessing Officer:
"1. That the applicant had purchased the land on 18.05.2018 from Mr. Ajjan So Mr. Chanddan, Resident: House NO. 47, Mohalla Imambada, Post and District-Gonda which cost Rs.1250000/- and on which Rs.81350 was paid as stamp value.
That the Applicant had paid the cost of land through cheque Dated 01/06/2018 and cheque numbers 21036655 & 21036656 each was of Rs.600000/- and the rest of amount and stamp fee was paid cash, which money was withdrawal from the cheque no. 21036653 dated 17/05/2018 whose amount was Rs.170000/-.
That the cheque's was drawn from the account number 414602010016953 of Union Bank of India Branch Kudha Keshavpur post Darshannagar District Ayodhya.
That the above mentioned account is of Mr. Ram Milan Verma S/o Mr. Jay Ram Verma who is father in law of the applicant. And the money is in his account since 2014 he got the money through the sale of his agricultural paternal land."
Assessee has submitted bank account statement of her father-in -law.
Therefore, Sir, it is requested that in the light of the above facts, please cancel the notice issued and approve justice to the applicant.”
(B.1) After considering the aforesaid reply of the assessee dated 18/11/2023, the assessee was asked to furnish further evidence (copy of gift deed/loan/any other documents of an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- received from her father-in-law along with PAN). The date of compliance was fixed on 24/02/2024. The Assessing Officer did not give any further opportunity and passed ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order dated 28/02/2024 passed under section 144 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) in limine on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 249 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(C) At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned D.R. relied on the assessment order and the impugned appellate order dated 22/02/2025 of learned CIT(A). (D) Materials on record have been perused. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue has been heard. It is found that the date fixed by the Assessing Officer for making compliance of notice dated 19/02/2024 was 24/02/2024. This time was not sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to make the compliances especially as the assessee had to co-ordinate with her father-in-law for making compliance. Further the learned CIT(A) has also dismissed the assessee’s appeal without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for delay in filing of appeal. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding addition of Rs.12,50,000/- is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 17/07/2025)