Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold immovable property but did not declare capital gains, leading the AO to initiate reassessment under Section 148. Due to non-compliance by the assessee to notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), the AO completed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
Observing that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee failed to appear before it, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Validity of ex-parte assessment and appeal dismissal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renu Lata Tiwary…..………….……………............................……….……Appellant Regional Director Animal Husbandry Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834008. [PAN: AEEPT2902C] vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Ranchi….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 14, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 15, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 26.09.2023 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold certain immovable property during the assessment year under consideration. On verification of the data available, it was noticed that no capital gains arising from such sale had been disclosed in the return of income. Accordingly, after obtaining the necessary approval from the CIT, notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any return of income in response to the said notice. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued, but the assessee failed to comply with the same. Since there was no compliance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no other option Renu Lata Tiwary but to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. While doing so, the Assessing Officer computed long-term capital gains of ₹47,23,125/- and assessed the total income of the assessee accordingly.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any written submissions. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal ex parte and upheld the assessment order.
In the present appeal before the Tribunal, despite issuance of notice by the Registry on consecutive dates, the assessee has failed to appear or cause any representation through counsel. Since the matter cannot be kept pending indefinitely and both the lower authorities have passed orders ex parte, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 15th October, 2025.