Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17, with a delay of 211 days. The assessee had failed to comply with notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte assessment order and a partly allowed appeal by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had made additions based on a property sale below market value and contract receipts, invoking Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both parties and examining the affidavit for condonation. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case with submissions and documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal, filed with a significant delay, should be admitted and if the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration due to non-compliance by the assessee.
Sections Cited
50C, 148, 142(1), 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 211 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.
Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, the ld. AR Shri Y. Sridhar, CA submits that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed exparte. The ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee sold a property for ₹.5,72,00,000/- below the market value of ₹.7,89,36,000/-, thereby the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] is applicable to the assessee. The Assessing Officer calculated income from capital gain at ₹.3,56,04,777/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition amounting to ₹.4,33,31,223/- from the market value of ₹.7,89,36,000/-.
The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee has also received contract receipt of ₹.58,54,325/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued, but, however, there was no response from the assessee to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.3,56,04,776/- under long term capital gains and ₹.4,68,346/- being 8% of contract receipt of ₹.58,54,325/- and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19.03.2022. Since the assessee could not file any reply to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that no compliance was made by the assessee during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions/documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02nd February, 2026 at Chennai.