HARJINDER SINGH,DERABASSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, which is contrary to established legal principles requiring adjudication on facts and evidence. Acknowledging the assessee's claim of being an illiterate agriculturist and the availability of new evidence like Fard Girdawari, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit all necessary documents for a de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual agriculturist, sold agricultural land and claimed exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act by reinvesting the proceeds. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption, adding Rs. 86.61 lakhs as long-term capital gain, and also added Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained income due to a lack of evidence for agricultural use and a satisfactory explanation for a bank credit. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for section 54B exemption on the sale of agricultural land and the taxability of an unexplained bank credit. Also, whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 54B,Section 56(2)(x),Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sanjeev Lal v. CIT122 citing225 Taxmann 239 · 2014 · SC · Read judgment
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 20/12/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in both law and facts of the case while issuing the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT erred in denying the exemption under se
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
