MALLANGOUDA ,GULBARGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YADGIR

ITA 2263/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mallangouda, the appellant, who contested an order from the CIT(A) regarding the non-declaration of income from a property sale transaction. The AO had added Rs. 91,75,000 to the assessee's income, which was contested on the grounds that the sale deed was disputed and subsequently cancelled by a civil court. The assessee argued that the civil court's decision, which occurred after the assessment, was not considered by the AO. The ITAT acknowledged the procedural oversight and the need for a comprehensive examination of the new evidence (civil court's decision) and granted a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470463 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S.
• Assessee Lawyers: THARUN KOTHARI
• Section: 250; 201

Judgement Text

"ITA No.2263/Bang/2024 Mallangouda, Gulbarga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2263/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mallangouda Sruthi Complex PKG Bank 3rd Floor, Yadgiri Gulbarga 585 201 Karnataka PAN NO : CYIPM6673F Vs. ITO Wad-1 Yadgir APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Tharun Kothari, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 10.5.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064813301(1) Passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. There is a delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drawing the attention of the bench towards the condonation application as well as medical record of the uncle of the assessee, contended that the uncle of the assessee was suffering from cancer and ultimately expired it has also been mentioned that there was no one in his family to look after his uncle. ITA No.2263/Bang/2024 Mallangouda, Gulbarga Page 2 of 3 3. Ld. D.R. could not object to the contention for condoning the delay, therefore, we proceed to condone the delay of 117 days and proceed to decide the matter on merits. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the AO has made the addition on the basis of the fact that the assessee has received a consideration of Rs.91,75,000/- towards the sale of one property of HUF, and has not declared any income from this transaction while filing the return of income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that since there was a dispute among the vendor and vendee vis-à-vis non-receipt of full consideration the assessee has filed a civil suit for cancelling the sale deed. It has been pointed out that when the assessment proceedings were going on, the alleged sale transaction was pending in dispute before the Civil Court and the ld. Civil court vide order dated 9.12.2023 has cancelled the sale transactions and hence there is absolutely no gain to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that since the civil court’s order has come later on, the AO was not having the benefit of that order. It is also pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has granted only one opportunity to the assessee and thereafter decided the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the contentions of the assessee. At last ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity before the AO may kindly be granted. 5. Ld DR relied upon the orders of authorities below. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and appreciating that the civil court’s order has arrived after the framing of assessment order, we are of the firm view that this matter needs fresh examination at the end of AO. We further observe that the CIT(A) who has coterminous powers as ITA No.2263/Bang/2024 Mallangouda, Gulbarga Page 3 of 3 that of the AO, has not granted enough opportunities to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-party. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we restore the matter to the file of AO for examining a fresh. Needless to say, that the ld. AO will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Mar, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 26th Mar, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "