Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a regular return of income for AY 2015-16. Based on information about the sale of immovable property, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148, treating the sale proceeds as business income. The CIT(A) restricted the addition and directed the AO to compute gains under the head 'capital gains'.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground related to the validity of the notice under section 148. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate this specific ground after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the non-adjudication of the validity of the reassessment notice (u/s 148) by the CIT(A), which led to the remand.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 32.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant had sold immovable property, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Benny John Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued to the appellant. In response to notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 25.05.2025. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 11.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 73,36,000/-. While doing so, the AO treated the sale proceeds as business income of the appellant.
On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 6,42,900/- and directed the AO to compute the gains arising out of sale of immovable property under the head ‘capital gains’.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground relating to validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act raised vide ground No. 4. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicated ground No. 4.
The learned Sr. DR had not serious objection for remanding of the matter to CIT(A).
Benny John 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated ground of appeal No. 4 raised by the appellant before him, we remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground of appeal relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 6th November, 2025.