RAMKISHAN,BAGHPAT vs. ITO WARD-1(5), MEERUT
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 found that the assessee's rural background and lack of technical knowledge led to ex parte orders. The Tribunal also noted the claim of long-term capital gains and the issue of pre-paid taxes not being considered.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a farmer, appealed against an order upholding the assessment of income under short-term capital gains. The assessee claimed the income was from long-term capital gains and argued that due to lack of technical access and prior counsel's reliance, the case was decided ex parte at both assessment and appellate stages.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's appeal, dismissed for want of prosecution due to lack of technical access, should be reconsidered on merits, considering the classification of capital gains and credit for pre-paid taxes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10168948 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 1(5), Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and upholding the assessment of income under short-term capital gains while the assessee claims the same was long-term capital gain.
The ld. AR pointed out that the assessee is a farmer from a rural background having no access to e-mail and have no knowledge of ITBA portal was entirely dependent on earlier counsel. Due to this peculiar circumstances, the appellant could properly represent his case which resulted in ex parte order both at the assessment stage and before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that on merits if ld. CIT(A) had considered the issue it will come up that ancestral land was sold and the income is chargeable to long-term capital gains. It was also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the credit of pre-paid taxes in computation of income.
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that given the nature of income and status of assessee, it is an appropriate matter where setting aside the assessment order to the file of the ld.AO will serve the ends of justice.
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 →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
