HASAN BASIR ALIABBA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , MANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that although the assessee was negligent, certain grounds presented by the assessee had merit. The CIT(A) did not consider the stamp duty and registration charges paid by the assessee, nor did it investigate the claimed improvement cost on the property.
What were the facts?
The assessee neither appeared during assessment nor appellate proceedings. Notices were issued, but the assessee did not appear. The case involved income escaping assessment during the COVID-19 peak, with notices issued under section 148.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's grounds regarding stamp duty, registration charges, and property improvement costs, and whether the assessment proceedings were conducted fairly given the assessee's non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER : WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 29/12/2022 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048335293(1) for the assessment year 2013-14.
At the outset, we note that the assessee neither appeared during the assessment proceedings nor appellate proceedings despite the fact that the notices were issued upon the assessee intimating the date of hearing. Thus, it appears that the assessee is negligent and non-serious person in pursuing his matter. But before we draw any adverse inference against the assessee, we find important to highlight to certain facts narrated below:
1) When the case was picked up for income escaping proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and when it came to be concluded, the COVID 19 was at its peak. The case was selected for income escaping assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20/12/2020 and the assessment was completed vide order dated 28/09/2021.
2) The appeal was instituted before the ld. CIT(A) on 18/12/2021 but four notices were issued for the hearing between the period from 23/11/2022 to 16/12/2022 and the order was passed dated 29/12/2022. Thus, it appears that 4 notices were issued in a period of less than 1 month.
The assessee in the ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has clearly intimated that he has paid stamp duty charges and registration charges amounting to Rs. 1,13,050/- and Rs.13,810/- respectively but no cognizance was taken by the ld. CIT(A).
In the ground of appeal, the assessee claimed that there was improvement cost incurred on the property amounting to Rs.14,46,860/- only. But there was no action taken by the ld. CIT(A) either by conducting necessary enquiries or by taking remand report from the AO or by deputing the Inspector for the inspection.
3. Admittedly, the primary onus lies upon the assessee to justify his stand basing on materials. But in the event, if he does not co-operate, then it does not mean that the arbitrary additions can be made to the income of the assessee. As such, the Hon’ble Courts time and again have held that income of the assessee should be decided in scientific manner and within the provision of law.
4. Considering all the facts discussed above, we find that the assessee has some merit in his case, which in our considered view should not be thrown away on technical counts. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the AO. It is also directed that the assessee shall cooperate during the proceedings before the AO, otherwise the AO will be at his liberty to decide the issue in the light of the above discussion and as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
