Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property and declared a capital loss. The AO reopened the case and disallowed costs of construction and transfer expenses due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, citing the assessee's failure to provide submissions despite multiple opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for another opportunity to present evidence and decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for cost of construction and transfer expenses without sufficient documentary evidence, and if the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 143(3), 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 320/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt.Usha Sharma cuke The ITO Vs. 111/290, Agarwal Farm Ward -2 (4) Jaipur – 302 020 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: LNZPS5987F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 11.01.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The assessee has constructed building in 2004-05, the same property was sold, in the sale deed the construction was clearly stated. Further, the assessee provided with the pictures of such construction and also shared the calculations of the amount of cost incurred on such construction. But the AO and CIT(A) did
2. That the AO levied interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.92,650/- and interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.1,01,370/- for the assessment year 2012-13. Whereas since there is no additional tax liability, hence there does not arise the levy of interest as well.
2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, it is noticed that there is delay of 334 days in filing the appeal of the assessee for which the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR objected to such inordinate delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the assessee has not adduced any document / application for condonation of delay as to the delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT for which the Bench imposes cost of Rs.1,000/- upon the assessee as to late filing of the appeal and this amount of Rs.1,000/- as cost shall be deposited by the assessee in ‘’Prime Minister National Relief Fund.’’ 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order for the reason that the assessee was provided three opportunities to adduce submission but the assessee SMT USHA SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR failed to give any submission before the ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’4.1….. Three opportunities have been given to the appellant for further submission within the stipulated time but the appellant has failed to give any submission, hence the case is decided as per material available on record. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the appellant had admitted that she did not have any evidence in respect of transfer expenses of Rs.1,11,000/- and in respect of cost of construction of Rs.4,30,000/- During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant has failed to give any submission to support /explanation of her grounds of appeal with documentary evidence. 4.2 Therefore, on perusal of the assessment order, I find merit on the order of the assessing officer passed under section14y/143(3) of the I.T. 1961 is upheld. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’’ 5.
3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO so that the issue in question could be settled. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording valid reasons and getting prior approval of the competent authority on the basis of the information that the SMT USHA SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR during assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had sold an immovable property on 12-01-20212 situated at House No.252,Scheme Ekta Nagar, A- Block, Behind Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for a sale consideration of Rs.16.00 lacs which was valued by the Stamp Duty Authority at Rs.16,27,419/- for stamp duty purposes. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26-03-2019. In response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act,1961, the assessee had furnished her return of income on 16-09-2019 and declared loss from the Capital Gain of Rs.(-)1,22,327/- claiming (1) Transfer expenses of Rs.1,11,000/- (2) Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,11,327/-. Accordingly, another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-10-2019 requiring him to furnish supporting evidence (1) in respect of transfer expenses of Rs.1,11,000/- (2) in respect of cost of land of Rs.4,50,000/- and(3) construction cost of Rs.4,30,000/- fixing the date of hearing for14-10-2019. The AO observed in the assessment order that the assessee vide her written submission dated 1- 11-2019 herself admitted that she does not have any evidence in respect of transfer expenses of Rs.1,11,000/- and in respect of cost of construction of Rs.4,30,000/-. It is further noted that in respect of purchase cost the assessee had produced before the AO, the copy of patta from Mitra Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Jaipur dated 7-09-1999 and a copy of SMT USHA SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR receipt. The AO after considering the same allowed the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.9,08,098/- as claimed by the assessee and thus computed the long term capital gain of Rs.7,19,320/- in the hands of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to any submission / explanation before him in spite of providing three opportunities. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /10/2025.