Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2016-17. Based on information about the sale of immovable property for Rs. 70,00,000/-, the assessment was reopened under sections 147/148 of the Act. Due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the AO completed an ex-parte assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144, treating the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain, which was upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC's dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, without addressing the merits and stating reasons, violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a final opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
The key issues were the validity of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution without addressing merits, allegedly violating Section 250(6), and the correctness of the AO's assessment of the entire property sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 133(6), 144, 54F, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHREE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Assessee by : Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan Department by : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 16-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and did not file his return of income for AY 2016-17. Based on the information received from the Insight Portal under RMS-Non-Filing of Return (PAN Cases), it was found that the assessee had sold immovable property to Golden Builders and Developers for a consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- during the relevant AY which has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was thus reopened under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.01.2023 after following the mandated provisions of law. The various statutory notices as well as show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO from time to time calling for the requisite details in relation to the above transaction of sale of immovable property by the assessee remained un-complied with. Even the notice issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) to Golden Builders and Developers u/s 133(6) of the Act remained un-complied with. Due to non- compliance of notices issued by the Ld. AO and in the absence of any details of date and cost of acquisition or other related documents, the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide his order dated 21.03.2024 thereby treating the entire amount of sale proceeds/value of immovable property of Rs.70,00,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain (“STCG”) earned during the year and added the same to the total income of the assessee for the relevant AY 2016-17.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC there was non-compliance of notice of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing the findings of the Ld. AO.
Dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal.
“1. The learned AO erred in treating the entire Rs 70,00,000/- as short term capital gain in the hands of the appellant although the land was ancestral agricultural property inherited by the entire family and not individually owned by the appellant.
2. The learned AO erred in law in not recognizing that the land was held for more than the statutory period and therefore any gain if computed is long term capital gain and eligible for indexation and exemption under section 54F since the proceeds were invested in construction of the family residential house.
The learned AO and learned CIT Appeals failed to consider that the entire proceeds were family funds and reinvested in the new residential house Ramayan Bangla for all legal heirs as acknowledged in the NFAC order itself.
4. The learned CIT Appeals erred in passing the order ex parte despite the fact that hearing notices were never received physically and the appellant is not a regular email user. The failure to attend was not deliberate.
The learned CIT Appeals erred in ignoring that the appellant had submitted all supporting documents at the time of filing appeal including sale deed POA and construction details.
The learned AO erred in law by assessing the case without verifying cost of acquisition inheritance records or applying correct legal provisions relating to long term capital gain and exemption under section 54F.
The impugned orders suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant never received effective opportunity of being heard.
8. The appellant craves leave to add modify or withdraw any grounds.”
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance to the notices before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not deliberate. He submitted that the notices of hearing went unnoticed by the assessee due to lack of access to the email account on which the notices were served. He further submitted that the assessee had on one occasion also filed adjournment request which shows no deliberate non-compliance on the part of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing all the requisite details/ documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issues raised by the assessee before him afresh on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee never bothered to make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.
7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not make any submission for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that such non- compliance was not intentional but resulted on account of the reasons cited above. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattarcharjee and Another, 10 CTR 354 (SC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without himself going into the merits of the case. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. None-the-less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the appeal, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the issues raised by the assessee back to file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merits as per fact and law, after giving one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide the latest and active email id to the Department for receiving notices of hearing and remain vigilant in accessing the email(s). Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and make submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th February, 2026.