Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an old-aged teacher, faced an ex-parte assessment for AY 2015-16 under sections 147/144, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,00,01,000/- for non-deposit of Short Term Capital Gain tax. Her appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred, which she attributed to notices being sent to an old address and her unawareness of the proceedings. She also contended the property transfer was without consideration, a point contested by the Revenue.
Held
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's inability to represent her case before lower authorities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, to ensure due opportunity for hearing and evidence submission.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing an ex-parte assessment and dismissing the appeal for limitation without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present her case on the merits of Short Term Capital Gain addition.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2015-16 Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik The ITO बनाम/ 118, Saket Raw House Ward-1(2)91) v/s. B/h. Memnagar Gram Ahmedabad – 380 015 Panchayat Memnagar S.O. Ahmedabad – 380 025 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHPY 1844 P (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/06/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
The assessee, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,01,000/- on account non-deposit of tax of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) earned by the assessee. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 2
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex-parte/best judgement assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. He has further invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to show that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and has further contended that the assessee is an old-aged lady and a retired teacher. She had moved to some other place along with her husband, but the notices were issued by the AO at the old address of the assessee, which did not come to the notice of the assessee resulting into passing of the ex-parte assessment order and also delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits as the assessee had transferred the house/property to her son without any consideration. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee could not furnish the requisite details and evidences before the lower authorities as she was not aware of the proceedings before the AO. The Ld. Counsel has, therefore, submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO.
The Ld. DR, however, has vehemently relied upon the findings of the lower authorities and has submitted that the assessee had been negligent in pursuing her case before the lower authorities. That it was the duty of the assessee to inform the changed address to the AO, if she had changed the address. He has further submitted that even the contention that the house/property has been transferred by the assessee to her son without consideration was not correct as in the sale-deed, there is a mention of the sale consideration paid. Pragnaben Umeshbhai Yagnik vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 3
We have considered the rival submissions. The fact on the file is that, in this case, the assessee could not represent her case before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR has also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Though there may be delay before the Ld. CIT(A) due to some negligence on the part of the assessee also, but for which, she may be burdened with reasonable costs. However, in our view, the interests of justice demand that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the AO. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment afresh, however, subject to condition of deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the proof of such deposit before the AO. Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the AO will pass the assessment order afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and of furnishing the requisite explanations and evidences. The assessee will be vigilant about the assessment proceedings before the AO and it will not be a ground to the assessee that she had not come to the knowledge of the notices issued by the AO.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.