Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal summarily without adjudicating on merits. The assessee claimed they were unaware of income tax proceedings and notices, as their counsel was in Agra and they did not receive any information.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate their claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to send notices physically, as the assessee claims not to have email.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal summarily without adjudicating on merits, and whether assessment proceedings were valid without proper notice service to the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 54
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.07.2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in a summary manner, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. It was the submission that the assessee could not know about the issue of the notices, since the assessee being a senior citizen lady was unaware of income tax proceedings and her counsel Sonal Agarwal, CA who was resident of Agra, did not inform her. As such the order passed is unjustified and uncalled for. It was further submitted that the assessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act completed without service of any notice u/s 148 of the Act upon the assessee. Simply issue of notice u/s 148 at portal, without its service is non- est in the eye of law. As such the assessment order passed is ab-initio void and be quashed. It was also the submission of the ld. AR that the order passed is liable to be quashed since the same was alleged to be passed on 31.03.2022 without DIN and without recording the reasons for passing of the manual order without DIN in utter violence of the mandate given by CBDT its CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019. Ld. AR also submitted that the during the course of assessment, the AO was not justified in taxing the alleged LTCG of Rs. 87,42,000/- during the year since no delivery of possession of the alleged flats were received by the assessee during the year under consideration. In fact, the development agreement was registered on 10.11.2015 and the possession of the flats was given by the developer to the assessee on 12.10.2017 i.e. in AY 2018-19. As such the question of receiving any alleged sale consideration during the year does not arise and the AO erred in not reducing the indexed cost of acquisition of land and building out of the alleged taxable long term capital gain. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that ld. AO erred in not giving deduction u/s 54 in respect of the flat no. 2/C and 3/C of total area 2,800 sq. ft. retained by the assessee for self-occupation of her and her family. Besides, the year of taxability even if the deduction is allowed u/s 54, the taxable LTCG will be Nil.
In reply, ld Sr. DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case and the orders of the lower authorities clearly shows that the assessee could not be able to substantiate her claim before either of the authorities below. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It would also be advised at least one notice to be sent physically as the assessee claims that she does not have any email. All the legal issues raised by the assessee are left open. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. AO in the readjudication proceedings, positively.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026.