RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI

PDF
ITA 41/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a non-filer, sold an immovable property for Rs. 13,00,000/- which was considered by the Assessing Officer as a capital asset, and the difference between the sale consideration and market value (Rs. 27,15,500/-) was added as capital gains and deemed income. The assessee claimed the property was rural agricultural land. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions.

Held

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent and cooperative.

Key Issues

Whether the property sold was a capital asset and whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Sections Cited

2(14)(iii)(b)(l), 147, 148, 142(1), 133(6), 144, 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 19.05.2025Pronounced: 29.05.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 41/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Rakesh Dubey, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Katra Mohalla, Old Bus Stand, Ashoknagar (MP). Ashoknagar (MP) PAN : BWAPD7436E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Amit Sogani, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2025

ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10146635 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”), wherein the learned first appellate authority has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal.

2.

Briefly stating, the facts are that the appellant/assessee is a non-filer. Based on the information available on assessment records, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had

ITA No.41/Agr/2025

sold an immovable property on 28.10.2013 for a sale consideration of

Rs.13,00,000/- against market value of Rs.27,15,500/-, but the assessee

did not offer any capital gain on the sale of the aforesaid property. The

Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing

notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, which stood un-responded.

Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022

and 18.02.2022, which were served upon the assessee, but for no avail.

The Assessing Officer further, vide notice dated 23.02.2022 issued u/s.

133(6) of the Act sought information from Tehsildar, Ashoknagar as to the

distance of the property in question from the municipal limits of Ashoknagar

municipality, who vide letter dated 23.03.2022 reported that the said

property is situated at a distance of approximately 1.5 KM from the

municipal limits of Ashoknagar. Based on this information, the Assessing

Officer observed that the assessee had sold a capital asset in terms of

section 2(14)(iii)(b)(l) of the Act. Since the assessee did not offer any

capital gain on the sale of this capital asset and also failed to furnish any

documentary evidence with respect to the questioned property, the

Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- as

long term capital gain and proposed the same to be added in the income of

the assessee. That apart, the Assessing Officer further proposed addition

of Rs.14,15,500/- as deemed income of assessee, being the difference 2 | P a g e

ITA No.41/Agr/2025

between the fair market value of Rs.27,15,500/- and the sale consideration

of Rs.13,00,000/- shown by the assessee. To the above effect, a show

cause notice cum draft assessment order was issued to the assessee on

10.03.2022, in response to which the assessee filed a written submission,

stating that the said property sold by assessee was a rural agricultural land

and not a capital asset. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the

submission of assessee in view of Tehsildar’s report and made addition of

Rs.13,00,000/- as long term capital gain and Rs.14,15,500/- as deemed

income of the assessee vide assessment order 24.03.2022 passed u/s. 147

r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing

Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal.

4.

Appellant/assessee has preferred this appeal apart from other

grounds that the revenue has not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing

and Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions made by the

Assessing Officer.

5.

Perused the records and heard learned Authorized Representative for

the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the

Revenue.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.41/Agr/2025

6.

Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that for want of proper

opportunities, the assessee could not produce the proofs and documents

before the learned authorities below in support of his case. Prayed to set

aside the impugned order and to provide opportunity of hearing before Ld.

CIT(Appeals).

7.

Learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee was

provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on

various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the

impugned order.

8.

It transpires from the perusal of record that the assessee did not

respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

proceedings on various dates. The assessee also failed to respond to

various notices issued by the first appellate authority on 15.09.2023,

20.02.2024, 21.06.2024, 05.07.2024 and 19.11.2024. Such an irresponsive

conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of

justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last

opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned

CIT(Appeals) for adjudication of the matter afresh. We order accordingly.

We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending

the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for

the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking 4 | P a g e

ITA No.41/Agr/2025

any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to

say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles

of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025.

(MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2025 *aks/-

RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI | BharatTax