MUKESH KUMAR,GHAZIABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3330/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mukesh Kumar against the order of the CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal regarding the assessment year 2015-16. The primary grievance was the dismissal without proper hearing and the upholding of an addition of Rs. 1,24,00,000 and interest of Rs. 19,828 as short term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which the Tribunal found plausible and thus condoned. The Tribunal also observed that the issue of the actual sale consideration received by the assessee, which was Rs. 62,00,000, was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792128 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Shri Mukesh Kumar Vs. The I.T.O H. No. 239, Village Makanpur Ward – 2(1)(3) Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN – CBJPK 0931 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 21.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The sum and substance of the grievances agitated by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording proper opportunity of being heard to assessee, without adjudicating on the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO Page 2 of 4 merits and upholding the addition of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 19,828/- made on account of short term capital gain on sale of immovable property. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed with the assistance of the ld DR and material on record. 4. At the very outset, the ld. DR pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons cited by the assessee in the application filed by the assessee seem to be plausible. We, therefore, condone the delay. 5. We have heard the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue involved in this case is the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gain of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- on sale of immovable property. It is the claim of the assessee that the immovable property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 62,00,000/- only and not Rs. 1,24,00,000/- as determined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had received Rs. 62 lakhs only as sale consideration and this issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A). 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the condonation application of the assessee favourably. Nevertheless, we also find that the facts of the case Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO Page 3 of 4 regarding the value of property sold by the assessee has not been properly looked into by the AO. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to set aside the issue of determination of capital gain arising to the assessee, to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the veracity of facts to arrive at a decision as per law after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary documents and details as required by the Assessing Officer. Ground 1 is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12th DECEMBER, 2025. VL/, Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3330/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO Page 4 of 4 Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "