BALLU SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-68(5), NEW DELHI
Facts
The assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 30 lakhs in AY 2012-13 but did not disclose the transaction. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and, due to non-compliance with notices, made an ex-parte addition of the entire sale proceeds as capital gains without allowing cost benefits. The CIT(A) subsequently upheld this ex-parte addition.
Held
The Tribunal observed that it was not clear from the records whether the notices issued by the CIT(A) were properly served on the assessee. To ensure natural justice and provide a fair opportunity, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to provide updated contact details and cooperate.
Key Issues
Validity of ex-parte assessment and appeal proceedings due to unestablished service of notices; and the disallowance of cost of acquisition/indexation for capital gains calculation.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद�ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद�ी �ी िवकास अव�थी, �ाियक सद� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2727/िद�ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) ITA No.2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13)
Ballu Singh, House No. 415, Sector-22, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: ARBPS-7573-G
बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-68(5), Room No. 208, D-Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, J.L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 11002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 29/11/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 24.01.2024, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 65 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. After going through the application, I find that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but is for the reasons stated in the said application. The reason given by the assessee in application appears to be
2 ITA No. 2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13)
bonafide. The delay of 65 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had sold immovable property for Rs.30,00,000/-. The assessee in his return of income had not disclosed transaction of sale immovable property. On the basis of NMS information, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. There is no compliance to said notice by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 24.07.2019, 11.11.2019 and 13.11.2019. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The AO was therefore constrained to complete assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. The AO vide Assessment Order dated 27.01.2019 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act made addition of capital gains Rs.30,00,000/- i.e. entire sales proceeds were treated as capital gains u/s. 148 of the Act, without allowing benefit of cost of acquisition/indexation/cost of improvement. 3.1. Against the said Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice of hearing to the assessee on four occasions, the notices were issued electronically on ITBA portal. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings decided appeal of assessee upholding addition of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of capital gain. Hence, present appeal by the assessee. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has issued notice electronically on ITBA portal. It is not emanating from records whether any notice was served on the assessee on the email-id provided in Form no. 35. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to AO for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in
3 ITA No. 2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13)
accordance with law. The assessee shall provide address/email-id to the Assessing Officer, if there is any change in the address from the one already available with the Department, within 30 days from date of receipt of this order. The AO shall issue notice on fresh/new address/email-id made available by the assessee, if any. The assessee shall respond to the notice served by the AO, without fail. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 29th day of November, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िद�ी/Delhi, �दनांक/Dated 29/11/2024 NV/- �ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िद�ी /DR, ITAT, िद�ी 4. 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI
