BAHADUR SINGH,ZIRAKPUR PUNJAB V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

ITA 571/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bahadur Singh, a senior citizen and a diabetic with high blood pressure, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially time-barred, but the delay was condoned due to the appellant's health issues. The primary contention was the incorrect addition of income from the sale of agricultural land and non-acceptance of evidence like affidavits and agreements to sell by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the assessment order without a detailed examination of the merits, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28822 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPANDEEP SHARM A
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Capital Gains; Ignorance of law; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 148; 131

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 571/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bahadur Singh, H. No. 477, Preet Colony, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab140603 Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CDVPS 9706F अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Sapandeep Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: ITA No. 571/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 2 “1. That the Appellant is a senior citizen aged above 68 years and is severe diabetic and high blood pressure patient. The Appellant is not much educated or qualified and does not know about the law of Income Tax. 2. That Appellant had received notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961, issued by the Income Tax Officer ward 3 (5), Chandigarh on 30/03/2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and reply to notice was filed stating various sources of income and related documents were filed. The Appellant had income from sale of bajri, reta (building material), agriculture income and also sale of agriculture land has been reflected under the head of Long Term Capital Gains in the return filed u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act. 3. That the Assessing Officer has grossly erred by not accepting the agreement to sell executed with the persons to whom the Appellant had agree to sell his land as well as the Affidavits given by the purchasers. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 31,37,000/- instead of Rs. 30,00,000/- in very rash and hasty manner without any application of facts and law and has blatantly refused to consider Affidavits, Agreement to Sell as evidence. Moreover, the order of the A.O. also suffers from mismatch of date of filing of the I.T.R. which clearly indicates the time devoted by the A.O. for this assessment. 4. That further the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has up held the irrational order of the Assessing Officer specially the non-admission of evidence with regard to cash deposits of 30,00,000/- stating that \"the assessee was asked to produce the persons with whom the biannas are executed\". The ITA No. 571/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Appellant is ignorant of law yet the investigation was also open from the assessing officer's side and he could as well issue summons u/s 131 of the L.T. Act to examine the witnesses who are under oath as per their Affidavits according to law. 5. That the Appellant was aggrieved therefore filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner but due to old age, body ailments and Inconsistent health alongwith the effects of corona, Ignorance of law due to illiteracy and lack of communication led the worthy Commissioner pass an ex-parte order. 6. That the actions of the Assessing Officer are full of ignorance as he has made addition which is erroneous and without cross verification more over the Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the order without applying the Principals of natural Justice and has passed ex-parte orders which need to be quashed in the interest of Justice and Fair play. 7. That the Appellant prays to be allowed to take up additional grounds during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The registry has pointed out that the appeal is time- barred by 212 days for this the ld. counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 13th May, 2024 which is reproduced as under: ITA No. 571/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 4 “1. That the appellant is filing the accompanying appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 under section 253 of the Income Tax Act before this Honorable Court. 2. That there is delay of about 7 months in filing of the present appeal, which has occurred as the Appellant was suffering from old age, body ailments and Inconsistent health hence could not contact his counsel for f iling the present appeal in time. 3. That the above said delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the bonafide reason stated herein. 4. That the above said delay is bonafide and not intentional or deliberate on the part of Appellant.” 4. We have considered the issues brought out in the affidavit for condonation of delay and we are inclined to condone the delay. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection in the condonation of delay. 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel of the assessee brought out on record that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order ex-parte because of non-compliance by the assessee because of bad health of the assessee and many age-related deceases even though it is an ex-parte ITA No. 571/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 5 order. The ld. CIT(A) has not passed an order on merits rather he has simply relied on the assessment order passed by the A.O. 7. We have considered the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and we also find that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) are not on merits. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In our considered opinion, keeping in view, natural justice to the assessee, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the A.O. for passing an order de- novo after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the A.O. in order to complete the assessment order, all legal and factual issues will be available to the assessee. 10. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 571/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 6 “GP/Sr. PS” आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "