VIMAL CHAND KOTHARI (DECEASED), L/H. PANKAJ KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(5),, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The appeal was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2013-14. The AO reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 1.40 crores on account of sale of immoveable property, which the assessee failed to justify as agricultural land. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied principles of natural justice by the CIT(A) and if a fresh opportunity of hearing is warranted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Vimal Chand Kothari (Deceased) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, By legal Heir Pankaj Kothari, Non Corporate Ward 15(5) Plot No.4-A, Laxman Nagar, Chennai. Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [PAN: AADPK 0355R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A., ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055459568 (1) of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.08.2023 for Assessment Year 2013- 14.
Assessee is an individual. The assessing officer in his order observed that as per information collected, the assessee has entered into a sale transaction in respect of his immoveable property in Ottilyambakkam village for a consideration of Rs.1.40 crores. Assessee also deposited cash deposit of Rs.21,28,000/- and turnover of Rs.55,65,457/- on sale of scrapes. Assessee failed to file return of income for AY 2013-14. The case was reopened u/s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). During assessment proceedings, the assessee was not able to justify the sale of immoveable property / land in Ottilyambakkam as agricultural land not liable to long term capital gain tax. Hence, ld.AO made an addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- vide order dated 29.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits although assessee failed to appear or file written submissions before the ld.CIT(A) despite three notices. Assessee is in further appeal before us.
At the outset, Ld.AR for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld.CIT(A) issued first notice dated 23.01.2021 during Covid-19 period and others in 2023 after gap of almost 2½ years which were inadvertently not noticed by the assessee. Ld. AR for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.JCIT-DR relied upon the order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(A) to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to hear the appeal afresh. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of August, 2024 at Chennai.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026