SHRI M. HARISH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 4 (4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly hearing the assessee, despite granting adjournments. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not disclose capital gains from the sale of property in his return. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and made additions based on the sale deed. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
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) 5, Chennai dated 23.12.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged confirmation of various additions, however, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 admitting total income of ₹.1,87,969/- earned from house property and income from other sources. As per the information received from the SRO, Redhills by the Department, the assessee has jointly sold property along with two others on 21.01.2011 for a sale consideration of ₹.82,17,300/-, which was not disclosed by the assessee in his return. Since the assessee has not admitted any capital gains arising out of sale of immovable property, the Assessing Officer believed that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 18.04.2018. However, in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has not e-filed the return of income. After considering the sale deed copy received from the SRO under section 133(6) of the Act as well as written submissions of the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.43,54,599/- by working out the long term capital gains tax at ₹.41,08,650/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the assessee was granted adjournment on 17.10.2019, 04.11.2019 & 19.11.2019 and there is no detail as to whether the case was posted for hearing subsequent to the above dates and by presuming that the assessee intend to dodge the proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order on 23.12.2019. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be granted to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department, failing which, the appellate order already concluded shall stand confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 06th January, 2021 at Chennai.
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 →- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanatan Bal vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026