RAJ KUMAR,VPO JARODA V. ITO WARD-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 3945/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Raj Kumar, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The primary contention was the incorrect invocation of sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, leading to an alleged wrongful gain of Rs. 38,804,020 on the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The appeal was initially filed in ITAT, Delhi but was later transferred to ITAT, Chandigarh. The appellant argued that his submissions were not considered by the CIT(A), NFAC, and that he did not receive notices for compliance, which led to non-appearance and non-submission of required documents during the assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652919 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 3945/DEL/2023 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Raj Kumar, VPO Jaroda, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamunanagar- 135003 Vs. बनाम ITO, Ward-3, Yamunanagar èथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BLIPK8164P अपीलाथȸ/ APPELLANT Ĥ×यथȸ/ REPSONDENT ( Virtual Hearing) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.10.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2008-09. Initially this appeal was filed in ITAT, Delhi Benches but later on, a request was made to the Hon'ble 3945-Del-2023– Raj Kumar, Yamunanagar 2 President, ITAT for transfer of this appeal to ITAT Chandigarh Benches. Accordingly, Hon'ble President passed an order dated 26.7.2024 for transfer of jurisdiction over this case to Chandigarh Benches for disposal. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under:-  That the order of Ld. Appellate Authority is bad and against law and facts.  That the Ld. Appellate authority has wrongly raised gain amounting to Rs.38804020/- on sale of ancestral agricultural land in the hand of appellant.  That the submissions made to Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals at Panchkula before the appeal migrated to NFAC have not been considered. It was also submitted that the land was ancestral land. Since assessee received the land from his Great Grand Father.  That the Ld. AA has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 144/147 of Income tax act without establishing the facts that the assessee has taxable capital gain in his hand after exemption and deduction of cost of improvement. 3945-Del-2023– Raj Kumar, Yamunanagar 3  That the Ld. AA has no jurisdiction over the applicant and the order passed is without jurisdiction and deserves to quashed.  That the AA has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and in violation of principal of natural justice.  That the assessee craves the right to add delete any of the above ground for appeal. 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order in this case u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and similarly the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without considering / taking into consideration the submissions filed by the Assessee before the CIT(A), Panchkula, before the appeal was migrated to NFAC Delhi. Accordingly, Counsel for the Assessee argued that the issue raised by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order could not be replied by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the submissions that were filed before the ld. CIT(A) 3945-Del-2023– Raj Kumar, Yamunanagar 4 Panchkula before the appeal was migrated to NFAC were not considered by the CIT(A), NFAC Delhi. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the Assessee requested that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the notices sent by CIT(A), NFAC were not received / seen by the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee could not make any compliance of the same. 4. The Ld. DR argued that Assessee is a habitual offender as it is clear from the fact that he did not appear in time and even did not file the required written submissions before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and similarly, despite the fact that many notices were issued by the CIT(A), NFAC to the Assessee, the Assessee did not comply with such notices. Therefore, the Ld. DR requested the Bench that the request of the Assessee for remitting this file back to the CIT(A) should be rejected. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that since the Assessee had already filed the 3945-Del-2023– Raj Kumar, Yamunanagar 5 relevant documents before the CIT(A), Panchkula regarding all the grounds of appeal before the appeal was migrated to CIT(A) NFAC. The Assessee was under bonafide belief that all the written submissions filed by him would be considered by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC but from the Order of the CIT(A), NFAC it is clear that the submissions filed by the Assessee before the CIT(A) Panchkula were not taken into consideration. 6. We have considered the request of the Assessee and the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). We have also considered the arguments made by the ld. DR during the proceedings before us. We find that besides the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, he was supposed to dispose off the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record but that has not been done in this case. Accordingly, in order to have natural justice for the Assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to decide and pass an order afresh on merits, in accordance with law, on affording 3945-Del-2023– Raj Kumar, Yamunanagar 6 due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19.06.2025 sd/- sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Vice President Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "