AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication and that the Assessing Officer had made a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for the purchase of a new residential property after selling two plots. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for lack of evidence, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without a detailed adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the merits, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence for the Section 54F deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 54F,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10134606 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte.
Briefly, stated, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 31.03.2014, declaring income of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold two plots of Rs.6,98,000/- and Rs.14,18,000/- situated at Taj Nagari, Agra totaling to Rs.21,16,000/-. On the sale of first plot, the assessee claimed short term capital loss of Rs.51,050/- and on sale of second plot, he claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.7,33,457/-, claiming its deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had invested Rs.25,85,000/- in purchase of new residential property. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed return of income on 02.09.2021, declaring the same income, but the said return was treated as non-est by Assessing Officer for want of e-verification thereof. Since, no reply/submission in response to the statutory notice issued u/s. 142(1) was filed by assessee, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act on 23.03.2022, in response to which assessee filed his reply on 26.03.2022, claiming deduction of Rs.7,33,467/- u/s. 54F of the Act, but the same was disallowed by Assessing Officer and added to the declared income of assessee on the ground that the assessee did not file any purchase deed in support of his claim of purchasing new house property worth Rs.25,85,000/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 2 | P a g e
Appellant assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues raised on merits, solely on the ground of non- filing of written submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Perused the record. None responded on behalf of the appellant assessee. Heard learned Sr. DR for revenue.
At the very outset, we notice that this second appeal was filed on 24.07.2025 against the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 by a delay of about 383 days. In order to ensure the expeditious disposal, we condone the delay caused in filing this appeal.
It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that the assessee did not file any submission in response to notices issued by the first appellate authority on 14.12.2023, 10.04.2024 and 19.04.2024. It is, however, noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte impugned order without any substantial discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act.
Perusal of assessment order also shows that due to non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1), learned Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act and has rejected assessee’s claim of 3 | P a g e deduction u/s. 54F for want of any evidence to support purchase of new house property. In the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to afford an opportunity to the appellant assessee to make his submissions and file the requisite evidence before the Assessing Officer in support of his claim. The matter is thus remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing order a fresh in accordance with law after taking assessee’s submissions/evidence into consideration. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the proceedings and making submissions and filing required evidences before the learned Assessing Officer for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026