VEENA DEVI ,PALIGANJ vs. CIT(APPEALS), PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without allowing for any expenditures towards the property's purchase due to a lack of proper explanation from the assessee. The assessee's counsel requested one more chance to submit documents and explanations.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,08,07,000/- but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the sale receipts as income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of the full sale proceeds as income was justified without considering the cost of acquisition and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case with supporting documents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O R D E R
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 26.09.2025, DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081202404(1) challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per information available with the insight portal of the income tax department, the Veena Devi assessee has sold immovable property to the tune of Rs. 1,08,07,000/- and has not filed return of income. Accordingly, after following the due procedure for issuing the notice to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in response to the notice the assessee did not file any return of income. Subsequently, the case was fixed for hearing on different dates and allowed time to the assessee to submit his reply but all the notices were remained non complied therefore, the entire sale receipts of Rs. 10,87,000/- against the sale of immovable property was treated as income u/s 69A of the Act and the AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.05.2024.
The Ld. CIT(A) also provided various opportunities to the assessee to rebut the addition made by the AO against the sale of immovable property and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved from the above order, assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.
The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a housewife and she does know the income tax proceedings. Therefore, the notices were remained unresponded and the intention of the assessee was not to disrespect the notices issued by the Ld. revenue authorities. The Ld. Counsel further submitted and undertook that if one more chance is given to the assessee , the assessee will furnish documentary evidences to substantiate her case.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that both the authorities below provided various opportunities to the assessee and objected for giving one more chance to the assessee.
Veena Devi 8. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material on record and orders of authorities below. We noted that the case of the assessee was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and as per the information available towards sale of immovable property of Rs. 1,08,07,000/- has been considered as income u/s 69A of the Act without allowing any expenditures towards the purchase of property for want of proper explanation from the assessee side. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel requested and undertook that the assessee had sufficient documents to rebut the observation made by the AO and has requested for one more chance, therefore, as per our considered opinion, the considering the facts of the case in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO for denovo consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate her case with cogent documents in support of her claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 09.02.2026
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 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
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
