MRS. RACHEL CHRISTINA JOSEPH,CHENNAI V. ACIT, NCC-12(1), CHENNAI

ITA 497/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mrs. Rachel Christina Joseph, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.79,82,150 under 'income from other sources' due to the stamp duty value of an immovable property purchased, which was initially assessed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order after the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee, citing non-receipt of notices and unfamiliarity with technology, filed a delayed appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125975 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 139

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी मनु कुमार िगᳯर, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 497/Chny/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs.Rachel Christina Joseph, No.36, Balaji Nagar, 1st Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle -12 (1), Chennai. [PAN: ADXPR-3623-E] (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 30.10.2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2016- :-2-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 17 u/s. 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 31.03.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.73,53,920/-. The case was reopened as there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 21.12.2019 by making addition of Rs.79,82,150/- under the head income from other sources on account of stamp duty value of the immovable property purchased. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC. 3. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC issued notices to the assessee by providing an opportunity to submit the documents and evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed as per para 3 of the ld.CIT(A) order. However, the assessee has failed to respond or submit any submissions before the appellate authorities and hence the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by dismissing the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee by passing an order dated 18.10.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us with a delay of 416 days. 4. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the delay in filing the appeal is due to non-receipt of notices and orders. The assessee stated in her affidavit that she is not having knowledge of technology operations and do not regularly use the email :-3-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 communications. Therefore, the electronic notice and order sent via email was inadvertently overlooked and caused an unintentional delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condone the same before us. Further, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order of the ld.CIT(A) has been passed without the participation of the assessee and hence prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the assessee’s appeal. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by considering the information available and based on the AO’s order without the participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. We note the assessee is not having knowledge of technology operations and do not regularly use the email communications as per the affidavit filed, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. However, we do not deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in non- participation in appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. :-4-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 25th April, 2024 sp आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "