KALPANA TALUKDAR L/R OF (LATE) UTPAL TALUKDAR,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058308938(1) dated 29.11.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.11.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual along with two other persons had sold immovable property vide document No.238/2012 of SRO, Vijayawada on 13.01.2012 during the A.Y.2012-13 for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. But the govt. value of the immovable property stands at Rs.13,75,000/- as per provisions of section 50C of the Act, on which the assessee is liable for payment of capital gain tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act, since the assessee has not filed any return of income and declared income on capital gains. But, the assessee failed to furnish either return of income or information called for. The AO further issued show cause letter on 23.11.2019 to the assessee, as to why Rs.13,75,500/- cannot be treated as income from the head, capital gains. Since there is no response from the assessee for the show cause letter also, the AO completed the scrutiny assessment ex-parte and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.13,75,500/- and raised a demand of total tax payable at Rs.7,33,980/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). She pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee expired on 10.11.2023 and the L/R of the assessee was neither aware of the notices issued by the department nor the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted a copy of death certificate of the assessee and submitted that the L/R of the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate and prove the genuineness of assessee’s claim. He, therefore, pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with credible evidences. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford another opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate the case. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and served by the revenue authorities and produce supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.