SHAKUNTALA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), GAZIZBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 210/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was against the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not given proper opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with instructions to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee, and refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 due to the non-offering of capital gains from the sale of three immovable properties. The Assessing Officer completed an ex parte assessment, making an addition of Rs. 2,19,49,986/-, as the assessee failed to provide corroboratory evidence for a Section 54F deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the subsequent appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order by CIT(A) violated natural justice; justification for notice under Section 148 by a non-jurisdictional authority; and the quantum of capital gains addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

Hearing: 25/04/2024Pronounced: 30/05/2024

Appellant by Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

This appeal preferred by the Assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short ‘the CIT(A)’] on 17.10.2023.

2.

The appellant-assessee vide four grounds of appeal had challenged the impugned appellate ex parte order of the CIT(A) being against the principle of natural justice as proper opportunities of being heard were never provided by the CIT(A). Further, the justification for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short ‘the Act’] by non-jurisdictional authority and quantum of addition upheld by the CIT(A) were also challenged.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant-assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information that the appellant-assessee who sold three immovable properties, as one of the co-owners, valued aggregating to Rs. 17,76,45,800/- during the relevant year had not offered the capital gains derived therefrom. During the course of initial assessment proceedings, the appellant-assessee complied to the statutory notices from time to time as detailed in para 1 and 2 of the assessment order. However, in the later assessment proceedings in November, 2018, the appellant-assessee did not ensure compliance to the notice on 30.11.2018 even after seeking adjournment on 22.11.2018.

Consequentially, the AssessingOfficer completed the assessment ex parte. As per para 3 of the assessment order, it is evident that the appellant-assessee failed to furnish any corroboratory evidence in support of her claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and circle rate of the properties under reference. Hence, the Assessing Officer computed the capital gains arisen on the sale of the properties and enhanced the income by Rs.2,19,49,986/-. Aggrieved, the appellant-assessee filed appeal, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. Hence, this appeal is before us.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the case should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for making assessment de novo. Therefore, the case was not heard on merit and legal issue raised in the appeal.

5.

The ld. DR, placing reliance on the assessment order and the appellate order, argued the case for upholding of the finding of the subordinate authorities.

6.

We have heard both the parties at length. We have considered the facts of the case in entirety and perused the orders of the subordinate authorities. We are of the considered view that the case of the appellant-assessee is fit for remitting back to the Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order de novo after affording reasonable opportunities of being heard. We are refraining from commenting on merit and legal issue of the case.

7.

In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer and thus, the same is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 30 May, 2024

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →