SWARAN SINGH S/O SH DARBARA SINGH,HARYANA vs. GANDESH CHANDER GUPTA ITO WARD 1 (5) SHAMLI (UP) , UTTARPARDESH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an agriculturist, made an investment in agricultural land which was reopened by the AO. Due to non-compliance with notices, the assessment was completed ex-parte, adding the investment as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed beyond the limitation period should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence for an ex-parte assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
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 [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 05.07.2024, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The appeal is time barred by 403 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 403 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
Facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is an agriculturist. The assessment was reopened on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has made investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, along with his three brothers, had purchased agricultural land for total consideration of Rs.52,66,000/-. The assessee’s share of investment in said land is to be extent of ¼ i.e. amounting to Rs.13,16,500/-. The assessee was asked to explain source of investment. Notices u/s.142(1)/144 of the Act were issued. Since the assessee did not comply with statutory notices, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte and added Rs. 13,16,500/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate source of investment. The CIT(A), therefore, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal.
The assessment, as well as, the First Appellate proceedings were completed ex-parte due to non-appearance of the assessee. The addition has been made primarily for want of explanation and supporting evidence regarding the source of investment. To meet the ends of justice one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to substantiate his claim with relevant documentary evidence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and, thereafter, decide the issue in accordance with law.
The assessee shall respond to notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 16th day of December, 2025.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026