Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual who did not file an Income Tax Return, sold immovable property for Rs. 30,00,000/-, which the Sub Registrar Office valued at Rs. 77,96,000/-. Consequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, an assessment was framed under section 144, an addition of Rs. 77,96,000/- was made under section 69A, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee's appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) against the addition and penalty were dismissed *in limine* due to delay, as the CIT(A) did not find sufficient cause for condoning the delay under section 249.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that one more opportunity should be granted to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Following natural justice principles, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for *de novo* adjudication on the condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall decide the remaining issues on merits; otherwise, the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals *in limine* on grounds of delay without fully considering the sufficient cause under section 249(3). 2. Whether the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to substantiate the delay for condonation before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 271(1)(c), Section 249(3), Section 148, Section 149, Section 151A, Section 148A(b), Section 148A(d), Section 151, Section 50C, Section 69A, Section 142(1)
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
Ashap Kumar Shantiel Bara, v Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, s M/s. Jindal Power Limited, (Through NFAC, Delhi), Post:-Tamnar, Raigarh- 496107, Income Tax Office, Raigarh- 496001, C.G. C.G. PAN: AIWPB4321R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025 : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 10.06.2025 & 13.06.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 02.03.2023 and penalty order 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 26.09.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO”). Ashap Kumar Shantiel Bara Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in (against impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B) are as under:
1. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal on ground of delay without allowing opportunity and arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal by invoking provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming initiation of re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was initiated without fulfilling the stipulated conditions u/s.148, 149 and 151A of the Income- tax Act, 1961.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the notice under section 148A(b), order passed under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which were issued without obtaining approval of the authority specified in section 151 of the Act, being illegal and without jurisdiction and accordingly all proceedings following such non-est notices are illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the notice u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was issued in violation of provisions of section 151A read with CBDT's Notification dated 29/03/2022 being illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding addition of Rs.77,96,000/- as Income from Other Sources.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the assessment which was completed without referring the case to Valuation Officer u/s. 50C of the Income- tax Act, 1961.
The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. Ashap Kumar Shantiel Bara Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh 8. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.
271(1)(c)] 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal on ground of delay without allowing opportunity and arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to justify the delay in filing appeal by invoking provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding imposition of penalty of Rs.44,16,434/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.
4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.
Since the aforesaid two appeals pertains to the same assessee having interconnected facts, circumstances and issues, therefore they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed under this common order.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who did not file his Return of Income for the year under consideration, however, it is noticed by the department that assessee has sold immovable property value at Rs. 30,00,000/-. Whereas information value of property as per Sub