KULWANT KAUR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case due to incorrect service of notices. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 45,00,000/- to the assessee's income from the sale of agricultural land, but notices were sent to a wrong address. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte without going into the merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is valid when the assessee was not properly served notices and denied natural justice. Whether the agricultural land is a capital asset.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Velu Palandar v. DCIT94 citing83 ITR 683 · 1972 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
1. This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly added and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly confirmed an amount
ITA 181 & 182/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 2 of Rs. 45,00,000/ in the income of the appellant. It may kindly be deleted. 2. The Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax is unjust, illegal, bad in law and contrary to principle of natural justice. 3. The sold property is not a capital asset and obtained amount is not a taxable under the Income Tax Act 196 Lit may kindly be considered and the addition may kindly be deleted.
The facts of the case, as available from the record are that the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- to the income of the assessee; that the Assessing Officer served all notices of hearing at the assessee's her village Galaria, P.O. Mukeria, Hoshiarpur, Punjab but the assessee was residing in House No. 767, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, Distt.
Mohali, Punjab; that she sold an agriculture land on 24.06.2011 which was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; that she received consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- which was deposited in her Bank Account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mukeria during the year under consideration; that the Assessing Officer added this amount to the income of the assessee; that the assessee had filed an application for the adjournment, but the AO did not entertain the application and passed the order without following the principles of natural justice.
ITA 181 & 182/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 3 4. Against the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned ex-parte order and confirmed the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, without going into the merits of the case.
Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is found from the CIT(A)’s order that the ld. CIT(A) issued two notices of hearing i.e. for 27.09.2022 and 20.12.2023. The assessee sent a request for adjournment for 27.09.2022 and on the next date of hearing, the assessee did not appear nor any request for adjournment was filed. The assessee stated that the notice was sent on a wrong address.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case , we deem it appropriate that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present her case. Accordingly,
ITA 181 & 182/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 4 in the interest of justice, the appeal is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 182/CHD/2024
This is assessee appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The ld. Assessing Officer imposed a penalty and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)confirmed of Rs. 12,52,477/- U/s 271 (I )(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for which no Notice was served upon the Appellant during the assessment proceedings.
The Ld. Assessing officer and the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) passed the order without following the rules of natural Justice .Order passed b) the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjust, illegal and bad in law. The penalty imposed likely to be deleted.
Since we have already decided the quantum appeal of for assessment year 2011-12 and have restored the appeal to the file of the ld.
ITA 181 & 182/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 5 CIT(A), therefore, the penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA 182/CHD/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 against penalty imposed, being consequential in nature, is also similarly remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in and in are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 14.08. 2024.
More judgments on Section 2(14)
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ishvarbhai Bhagabhai Patel, Surat vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), SuratITA 6/SRT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Malini Satish Parekh, Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3), SuratITA 900/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
