Loading judgment…
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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Perused the records and heard learned Authorized Representative for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
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).
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.
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 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.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2025.