Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared an income of Rs. 2,90,250, but the Assessing Officer identified a difference of Rs. 11,83,000 between the stated purchase value and stamp duty valuation, considering it escaped income. After issuing notices under sections 148 and 144, the AO completed the assessment at Rs. 43,43,250. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal, rejecting the condonation of delay without examining the merits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay, rather than addressing the substantive merits. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a fair opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-RANCHI ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.2,90,250 for the assessment year 2018-19. As per information available with the Assessing Officer, the assessee had shown purchases of Rs.28,70,000 whereas stamp duty valuation reflected was Rs.40,53,000 during the year. Therefore, the difference of Rs.11,83,000 was considered as income that had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the act as well as show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued. The assessee, however, did not appear in response to the notices. Subsequently, the assessee filed a reply, but the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined the total income at Rs.43,43,250.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) where the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by rejecting the assessee's petition for condonation of delay and sustained the assessment order without examining the matter on merits.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before us, contending that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case and that a reasonable opportunity should be granted.
(A.Y. 2018-2019) Debasree Sengupta 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. It is seen that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the merits. In our view, the appeal ought to have been decided on merits instead of being rejected on technical grounds, particularly when substantive justice is involved. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and file all supporting documents necessary for proper adjudication.
In terms of the above directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Kolkata, the 17th day of December, 2025 Copies to :(1) Debasree Sengupta, Pansy B-427, Ashiana Garden, Sonari, Jamshedpur East, Singhbhum-831011, Jharkhand (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), 47, C.H. Area, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; 3