SHRI. NARSINGH RANGA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

ITA 10/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for the sale of a property. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, leading to a significant increase in the assessee's total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order against the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and deciding the grounds on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Seth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.11.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case the addition made is patently wrong and unwarranted. That the addition of Rs. 2,28,36,750/- made by AO is not correct as the assessee has invested the amount of sale proceed of Rs. 2,64,20,000/- within the period of 3 years from the date of sale of property. For the year under consideration AO has on

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →