KAVANOOR MADHAVAN NALINISHREE,KASTHURIBHAI NAGAR, ADYAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, to meet the ends of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 for capital gains, which was denied by the AO, taxing the entire sale consideration. The CIT(A) confirmed this order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
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: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, vide order dated 16.06.2023.
The assessee has raised many grounds for the issue of disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.28,77,235/- under the head
:-2-: ITA. No:595/Chny/2023 capital gains, which is erroneous and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual, filed her return of Income on 31.03.2017 declaring Income of Rs.2,20,830/- for the A.Y.2015-16. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was concluded by the AO and passed an order U/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/10/2017 by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s.54 towards purchase of house property, against the long term capital gain earned during the year and taxed the entire sale consideration of the long term capital asset of Rs.28,77,235/- under the head capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by passing an exparte order, since the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 43 days as per the Form 36
:-3-: ITA. No:595/Chny/2023 filed. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with condonation petition stating the reason that the assessee is aged about 68 years, suffering from illness and also not accessed to emails/computer on regular basis. The ld.CIT-DR did not seriously objected to condone the delay. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and adjudicate the appeal.
The ld.AR stated that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal without giving proper opportunity is in violation of natural justice and prayed for giving one more opportunity.
The ld.DR did not raise any objections for the same.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order, for non-compliance from the part of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. According to the ld.AR, the assessee didn’t get any notice due to technical glitches. Be that as it may, to meet the ends of justice and fair play, give one more opportunity to assessee and therefore, we remit the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
:-4-: ITA. No:595/Chny/2023 Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is at liberty to furnish the written submissions along with relevant details and ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance with law.
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026
