SHUBHRA KAUSHIK, BILASPUR,BILASPUR V. ITO, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 563/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shubhra Kaushik, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed on an ex-parte basis due to her non-compliance. The original assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the sale of an immovable property, which was not reported in her income tax return. The Assessing Officer added a capital gain of Rs. 26,34,500, considering the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and restored the case for a fresh decision, citing the need for a thorough examination of the issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787660 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3); 50C; 2(14)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 563/RPR/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shubhra Kaushik, Near Usha Tower, Jarhabhata, Om Nagar, Bilaspur-495001, C.G. v s Income Tax Officer, Vyapar Vihar, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur, C.G. 495001 PAN: AGTPK4191R (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Arpit Jain, C.A. राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2011-12, which in turn arises from the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 12.12.2018 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Bilaspur (in short “Ld. AO”). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. In the facts, and Circumstance of the case, order is bad in Law as well as on the facts. 2. ln the facts and Circumstance of the case, the Assessing officer has erred in reopening of the assessment by issuance of notice under 148 and thereby framing the Assessment 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition of Rs.26,34,500/- under the head Long Term capital Gain on sale of agriculture land situated at Gram Mopka which is outside the limits of municipality and do not come under the definition of Sec 2(14) as Capital Asset. 4. That the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the addition of Rs.26,34,500/- by applying the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 5. The appellant craves for reserving the right amend, modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has requested for adjournment, however, on a perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that the appeal of the assessee was disposed of in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis, therefore, the matter is taken up for hearing on the basis of facts available on record and submissions by the responded i.e., Department. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual, whose assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, as the assessee has sold an immovable property valued at Rs. 34,34,500/- but had not filed Return of Income for the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur year under consideration. Accordingly, statutory notice were issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act, but the assessee remain non-responsive, further requisite notice were issued u/s 142 & 142(1), but again the assessee remain non-compliant at every occasion, except filing of return in response to the notice u/s 148 dated 29.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,04,320/-. As per the information received from the Sub-Registrar Office, Bilaspur, Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has sold an immovable property situated at Mopka, Bilaspur for sale a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-., but as per copy of sale deed the market value as per Stamp Valuation Authority was determined at Rs. 34,34,500/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.34,34,500/- & 8,00,000/- was considered as capital gain in the hands of assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, however, the assessee remain non- compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) also, accordingly, the impugned order was passed on an ex-parte basis. 6. Before us, the appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 330 days for which a petition for condonation of delay was furnished by the assessee along with affidavit, stating that the assessee has not received any Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur notice or communication from the office of Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, she was unable to respond before him. It is also submitted that in appeal memo in Form No. 35, assessee preferred a communication other than by way of e-mail, therefore, has mentioned “NO” in the column “Whether notices/communication may be sent on email?” therefore, the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has not received any communication, therefore, was not represented before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of assessee was dismissed under an ex-parte order on account of non-prosecution with the following observations: 4. Decision 1. The assessee was provided with multiple hearing opportunities to submit the documents in support of Grounds of Appeal along with documentary evidences, as mentioned below. S. No. Hearing Order Date Date of compliance Remarks 1 29.12.2020 13.12.2020 No response received 2 01.11.2022 15.11.2022 No response received 3 07.08.2024 13.08.2024 No response received 4 14.08.2024 20.08.2024 No response received In total 4 hearing opportunities were provided to the assessee. 1. The assessee has failed to respond at multiple occasions. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur 2. The above details show that the appeal has been fixed repeatedly and ample opportunities given to the appellant. It shows that the appellant is not serious to pursue his appeal. As the appellant did not provide any explanation or evidence in support of the grounds of appeal, so I am constrained to uphold the addition made by the assessing officer for want of explanation as well as on merit too. In the circumstances, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 7. In backdrop of aforesaid facts, circumstances and submission, the matter is confronted to Ld. Sr. DR. Since the appeal of assessee has been dismissed in limine by way of an ex-parte order, as we have hold in many cases, we are of the opinion that the matter should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with one last and final opportunity to the assessee to represent the matter. On such remarks of the Bench, Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that she do not have any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 8. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the view taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), the relevant observations wherein are produced hereunder for the sake of reliance and applicability in the present case: “…………It is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(l)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it dear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact, with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply dear from the Section 251(l)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to at the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 9. In view of aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in absence of deliberation on the issues on its merits by the Ld. CIT(A) based on material available on record, in the interest of justice, without deliberating to the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur issues raised by the assessee on merits, we find it apposite to restore the present case back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 10. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings. Since the issues are restored back to Ld. CIT(A) at the request of the assessee, it is incumbent upon her to cooperate and assist proactively in the set aside appellate proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the case in accordance with the mandate of law. 11. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms over aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/11/2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 17/11/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav, Stenographer आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant- Shubhra Kaushik 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 563/RPR/2025 Shubhra Kaushik Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // Printed from counselvise.com "