SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) should have considered the case on its merits despite the delay and that the AO's entire addition of the sale consideration without considering the acquisition cost was not justifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the assessment order, remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard and substantiate claims.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 65 lakhs in AY 2018-19 but did not file an income tax return. The case was reopened under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, adding the entire sale consideration. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal due to a 10-month delay in filing, finding no sufficient cause for condonation under Section 249(2).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the merits, and whether the AO's addition of the entire sale consideration without accounting for acquisition cost was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
The assessee filed this set of 2 (two) appeals against the respective orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the (“CIT(A)” dated 27.12.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Page 1 of 4 -57 / GTY / 2025 Shauquat Alam -vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY : 2018-19 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available in multilayer NMS of AIIMS Portal of ITBA under the category of High Risk non-filer cases out of NMS, the assessee has sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/- during the financial year 2017-18 relevant to the AY 2018-19. No return of income was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the case was reopened under a reasonable belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act after recording of reasons. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee in respect of the reopening of the case including show cause notice. However, there was no response from the assessee’s side towards that notices. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and has made addition of the entire Rs. 65,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the earned 3. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. CIT(A) observed that, the assessee filed the appeal on 12.01.2024 with the delay of 10 months, which implies the assessee’s attitude and deliberate action on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that, it is abundantly clear that, the appeal filed by the assessee is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to Page 2 of 4 -57 / GTY / 2025 Shauquat Alam -vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY : 2018-19 delay 10 months in filing of the appeal by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) observed absence of sufficient cause from the side of the assessee for late filing of the appeal by him.
We may observe that, although the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal, it is our considered opinion that, the ld. CIT(A) could also consider the merit of the case while disposing of the appeal of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the merit of the case on the basis of the material available on the record.
Secondly, we may observe that, while making addition of the entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee, the ld. AO failed to consider as to whether, the assessee incurred any expenditure while acquiring that land or by his parent if the said land was inherited by the assessee. That, means, in our considered opinion, entire addition of the sale consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/- may not be justifiable. The assessee may be able to get proper relief as per the provisions of law. Therefore, it is our considered opinion that, the case of the assessee should be remanded to the file of the ld. AO for reconsideration. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27.12.2024 as well as the assessment order dated 09.02.2023 and remand the case to the ld. AO for consideration afresh.
We direct the ld. AO to reconsider the case of the assessee after giving him an opportunity of being heard. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the ld. AO. The Ld. DR has no objection in remanding the case to the ld. AO for fresh consideration. Thus, we allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes only.
As we have allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, we set aside the penalty order dated 26.06.2023 passed by Page 3 of 4 -57 / GTY / 2025 Shauquat Alam -vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY : 2018-19 the ld. AO till the completion of the reconsideration of the case of the assessee by the ld. AO.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
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 →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026