Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without affording an opportunity of being heard, upholding an addition for short-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee claimed the property was sold for Rs. 62,00,000/-, not Rs. 1,24,00,000/- as determined by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible. It set aside the issue of capital gain determination to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing them to examine the facts and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard and whether the determination of capital gains requires fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A), dated 21.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16.
The sum and substance of the grievances agitated by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to assessee, without adjudicating on the [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO merits and upholding the addition of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 19,828/- made on account of short term capital gain on sale of immovable property.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed with the assistance of the ld DR and material on record.
At the very outset, the ld. DR pointed out that the ld. CIT(A)
dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons cited by the assessee in the application filed by the assessee seem to be plausible. We, therefore, condone the delay.
We have heard the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue involved in this case is the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gain of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- on sale of immovable property. It is the claim of the assessee that the immovable property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 62,00,000/- only and not Rs. 1,24,00,000/- as determined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had received Rs. 62 lakhs only as sale consideration and this issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A).
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the condonation application of the assessee favourably. Nevertheless, we also find that the facts of the case Page 2 of 4 [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO regarding the value of property sold by the assessee has not been properly looked into by the AO. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to set aside the issue of determination of capital gain arising to the assessee, to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the veracity of facts to arrive at a decision as per law after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary documents and details as required by the Assessing Officer. Ground 1 is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in is 7. allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2025.