R.ROOPANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-12(2), CHENNAI
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 noted the assessee's lack of response and evidence before both the lower authorities and the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file income tax returns despite selling immovable property. Notices were issued, but the assessee did not respond, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication, and whether the assessee is entitled to present evidence for his claims.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 144,Section 54
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी धु�ु� आर.एल रे�ी, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2011-12 Shri R. Roopanand, The Income Tax Officer, No. 307, Lloyds Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Chennai. [PAN:AAIPR3151P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 14.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, dated 01.07.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. In the grounds of appeal, besides challenging the disallowance of cost of indexation of residential flat under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and from the Non Filters Monitoring System (NMS) portal of the Department, it was noticed that the assessee has not filed his return of income for this year despite sale of immovable property of more than 30 lakhs during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 24.03.2018 and served on 02.04.2018. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 08.06.2018. A reminder was also issued on the assessee on 27.07.2018 regarding the immovable property transaction for ₹.36,25,000/-. Show-cause notice dated 31.10.2018 was also sent to the assessee. However, the assessee has not filed any details except filing donation receipts. After calling for sale deed of the transaction in immovable property under section 133(6) of the Act, the SRO, Mylapore has forwarded sale deed document bearing No. 5894/018/08/2010 of the above property. Since the assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued on him, based on the sale deed transactions, the Assessing Officer passed best judgement assessment order under section 144 of the Act assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.36,25,000/-. On appeal, since the assessee could not responded/represented his case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Despite noting the date of hearing during last date of hearing, none represented on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the orders of authorities below, we find that the assessee has not made any efforts either to put his appearance or file written submission with evidences, if any, to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has also not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011- 12 or responded to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any material evidence to support his claim except grounds of appeal and orders of authorities below. No authority can decide an appeal upon the grounds of appeal of the assessee without supporting evidence, etc. In view of the above, the assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents with cogent evidence to support his claim before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue raised in the appeal of the assessee after affording an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 20th October, 2020 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026