BALLU SINGH,HARYANA V. ITO, WARD-68(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 2727/DEL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ballu Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs.30,00,000 as capital gains from the sale of immovable property, for the assessment year 2012-13. The initial assessment was made under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance with notices regarding the non-disclosure of the property sale in the tax return. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices. The ITAT found procedural lapses in notice delivery and restored the case to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298855 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVANI BANSAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2727/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) ITA No.2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) Ballu Singh, House No. 415, Sector-22, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 PAN: ARBPS-7573-G ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-68(5), Room No. 208, D-Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, J.L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 11002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 29/11/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 24.01.2024, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal is time barred by 65 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. After going through the application, I find that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but is for the reasons stated in the said application. The reason given by the assessee in application appears to be 2 ITA No. 2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) bonafide. The delay of 65 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had sold immovable property for Rs.30,00,000/-. The assessee in his return of income had not disclosed transaction of sale immovable property. On the basis of NMS information, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. There is no compliance to said notice by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 24.07.2019, 11.11.2019 and 13.11.2019. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The AO was therefore constrained to complete assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. The AO vide Assessment Order dated 27.01.2019 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act made addition of capital gains Rs.30,00,000/- i.e. entire sales proceeds were treated as capital gains u/s. 148 of the Act, without allowing benefit of cost of acquisition/indexation/cost of improvement. 3.1. Against the said Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice of hearing to the assessee on four occasions, the notices were issued electronically on ITBA portal. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings decided appeal of assessee upholding addition of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of capital gain. Hence, present appeal by the assessee. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has issued notice electronically on ITBA portal. It is not emanating from records whether any notice was served on the assessee on the email-id provided in Form no. 35. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to AO for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in 3 ITA No. 2727/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) accordance with law. The assessee shall provide address/email-id to the Assessing Officer, if there is any change in the address from the one already available with the Department, within 30 days from date of receipt of this order. The AO shall issue notice on fresh/new address/email-id made available by the assessee, if any. The assessee shall respond to the notice served by the AO, without fail. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 29th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 29/11/2024 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "