MUKHTIAR SINGH,PINJORE, PANCHKULA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

ITA 108/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mukhtiar Singh, the appellant, contesting the orders related to the assessment year 2012-13 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula. The primary issues revolved around the legality of the proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the absence of notice under section 148, and the unjustified addition of Rs. 52,00,000 on account of alleged unexplained sale of immovable property. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, noted that the orders passed by the lower authorities were ex-parte and lacked merit-based findings, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472630 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJMOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe
• Section: 148; 144

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. 108/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukhtiar Singh, Pinjore, Panchkula Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEZPS 1756A अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: ITA No. 108/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 2 “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 148 in as much as there was no escapement of income leading to a reason to belief and as such the re-opening is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that no notice under section 148 was ever served on the assessee and as such the order passed is illegal arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in as much as there has been no reason to believe that there was an escapement of income in as much as the reasons recorded are based only on borrowed information and as such the assessment order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,00,000/- made on account of alleged unexplained sale of immovable property which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 52,00,000/-treating agricultural land sold to be a Capital Asset especially when a specific ground of appeal in this regard was raised before him stating that the land was situated beyond the specified municipal limits which is arbitrary and unjustified.” ITA No. 108/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 3 3. During proceedings before us, it was brought to the notice of the bench that the order passed by the A.O. is an ex-parte order u/s 144 and because of non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A) also the order has been passed ex- parte. Moreover, it is important to note that while dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, the ld. CIT(A) has not given his findings on merit. Therefore, it was argued that keeping in view, natural justice to the assessee, the matter may be remanded back to the A.O. in order to verify the documents and other relevant papers of the assessee after providing adequate opportunity as required by the law. 4. We are of the considered view that in order to have natural justice in this case, the matter should be examined thoroughly by the lower authorities that as a matter of record has not been done in this case because of non-compliance of assessee before lower authorities. 5. Accordingly, we remand this case to the file of the A.O. to decide this case and pass an order de-novo after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is ITA No. 108/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 4 also directed not to take adjournments and make compliance to the notices of the A.O. as required in the law. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “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 "