SHILPA MALIK,BHOPAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 346/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Shilpa Malik, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which upheld the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under sections 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order added a substantial amount to the assessee's income as short-term capital gain, which was contested. The CIT(A)'s order was challenged on several grounds, including the ex-parte nature of the decision and procedural lapses such as not providing reasons for the assessment and not supplying necessary documents. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fair hearing and procedural compliance, leading to the remand of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779061 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 50C

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.346/Ind/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shilpa Malik, 36B, Sunrise Colony, Idgah Hills, Bhopal (PAN:APHPM8276N) बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, DR Date of Hearing 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070793026(1) dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13 Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 8 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.29,39,060/-. The total income as per the Return of Income was at Rs.7,34,360/-. The addition of Rs.22,04,700/- was made on the account of the short term capital gain. The aforesaid assessment orders bears No.20121154717 and that the same is dated 16.12.2019, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 8 “1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in ex- party manner which on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and uncalled for. It is prayed that the matter may very kindly be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeal on merits of the case after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of initiating the reopening proceedings u/s 148 and also upholding the order passed and also upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the said proceedings initiated and also the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are wrong, without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeal the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not supplying the reasons to believe' as might have been recorded by him even when the same was specifically requested by the appellant. 4. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeal the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not providing copy of the requisite sanction obtained from the competent authority as envisaged u/s 151 even though the same was specifically requested for by the appellant. 5. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeal the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order on 16.12.2019, even when notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 18.12.2019 and 21.12.2019, requiring compliance on 19.12.2019 and 23.12.2019 respectively. The order so passed even before the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law. 6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and thereby making an addition of Rs. 22,04,700/-. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, addition is wrong, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in invoking the provision of section 50C without fulfilling the prerequisite conditions stipulated therein. 8. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition to the total income of the appellant Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 8 without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed is wrong, against the principle of natural justice and not in accordance with law and is prayed to be quashed. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises”. 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 13.10.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and at the outset and threshold brought to our notice that there is a delay of 41 days in preferring the instant second appeal before this tribunal. It was contended that the “impugned order” is dated 02.12.2024 and the instant second appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.02.2025 i.e. within the two months period from the end of the month in which the “impugned order” was passed. The instant second appeal was filed on 10.04.2025 with a delay of 41 days. It was submitted that the assessee’s all financial matters were looked after by her husband Mr. Siddharth Malik. In the appeal memo the Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) the e-mail id given was of her husband which was [e-mail]. It was Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 5 of 8 also submitted that due to certain personal and intense disputes going on with her husband coupled with severe financial crisis in the family, the assessee’s income tax matters were ignored by her husband and that the appeal fixation notices did not come to the notice of the assessee and hence remained non complied. Even the “impugned order” did not come to her notice. However when the penalty proceedings was initiated by the revenue against the assessee, the C.A of the assessee visited the portal and came to know of the passing of the “impugned order”. Hence it was pleaded that there was a delay which may please be condoned. The delay was bonafide and was purely unintentional. If the delay is not condoned it would cause great hardship to the assessee. The Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue contended that the department has no objection if the delay is condoned as same is nominal. After hearing both sides and perusing the condonation of delay application with affidavit in support we are of the considered opinion that the delay should be condoned and accordingly we condone the same and admit the appeal. The Ld. AR then submitted before us that the “impugned order” of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order which is Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 6 of 8 a wrong and uncalled for. It was prayed that the matter may kindly be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the appeal on merit, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the “impugned assessment order” though u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act but it is more or less like u/s 144 of the Act. Per contra Ld. DR proposed that the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. A.O if the learned AR for the assessee agrees for the same. Hearing was then concluded. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us. 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process. 4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the rival contentions of the parties canvassed before us are of the considered opinion that both the “impugned Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 7 of 8 assessment order” and so also the “impugned order” are ex- parte in nature. Though the Ld. CIT(A) has provided several opportunities to the assessee still the assessee has remained non compliant. There is non compliance before the Ld. A.O too by the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee ultimately has pleaded for one last opportunity be given to the assessee to which the revenue too has no serious objection. Under these facts and circumstances we therefore deem it fit and proper to set aside the “impugned order” and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo basis. We direct the assessee to cooperate with the department and not to seek any adjournment on any flimsy grounds whatsoever. Be it noted by the assessee that non compliances, adjournments on flimsy grounds leads to ex-parte orders by the tax authorities and the whole system gets clogged causing inconveniences to all the stakeholders. 4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. A.O who shall give effective and meaningful opportunity to the assessee and would pass a reasoned order on merits of the case so that the income of the assessee is assessed and computed on real time basis Printed from counselvise.com Shilpa Malik ITA No.351/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 8 exigible to tax accordingly to law. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the department. 5. Order 5.1 In view of the aforesaid the “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. A.O on denovo basis with the directions as aforesaid. 5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 15.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक / Dated : .10.2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "