SHUBHRA KAUSHIK, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 8,00,000/-, but the stamp valuation authority determined its market value at Rs. 34,34,500/-, leading to an addition of Rs. 26,34,500/- as capital gain under reassessment proceedings for AY 2011-12. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and non-prosecution, without addressing the merits of the case.
Held
The ITAT, referencing a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present her case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment reopening and addition of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land (by applying section 50C and deeming it a capital asset) were valid, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 2(14), Section 50C, Section 142, Section 142(1), Section 246A, Section 250(4), Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(1)(b), Section 251(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2011-12, which in turn arises from the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 12.12.2018 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Bilaspur (in short “Ld. AO”).
2 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
In the facts, and Circumstance of the case, order is bad in Law as well as on the facts. 2. ln the facts and Circumstance of the case, the Assessing officer has erred in reopening of the assessment by issuance of notice under 148 and thereby framing the Assessment 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act.
That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition of Rs.26,34,500/- under the head Long Term capital Gain on sale of agriculture land situated at Gram Mopka which is outside the limits of municipality and do not come under the definition of Sec 2(14) as Capital Asset.
That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition of Rs.26,34,500/- by applying the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
The appellant craves for reserving the right amend, modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal.
At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has requested for adjournment, however, on a perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that the appeal of the assessee was disposed of in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis, therefore, the matter is taken up for hearing on the basis of facts available on record and submissions by the responded i.e., Department.
Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual, whose assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, as the assessee has sold an immovable property valued at Rs. 34,34,500/- but had not filed Return of Income for the 3 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur year under consideration. Accordingly, statutory notice were issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act, but the assessee remain non-responsive, further requisite notice were issued u/s 142 & 142(1), but again the assessee remain non-compliant at every occasion, except filing of return in response to the notice u/s 148 dated 29.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,04,320/-. As per the information received from the Sub-
