Case Number: ITA 1768/DEL/2020
Appellant: Sangeeta, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO WARD – 53(5), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Case Filed On: 2020-10-23
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-09-14
Pronounced On: 2021-09-14
This appeal, numbered ITA 1768/DEL/2020, was filed by Sangeeta against the order dated 25th August 2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appellant contested the computation of long-term capital gain made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A).
The case was heard by the Delhi “SMC” Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on August 4, 2021, with the order pronounced on September 14, 2021. The bench comprised Accountant Member Shri R.K. Panda.
The primary grounds of appeal were:
Sangeeta, an individual, did not file her return of income initially. Information received by the AO indicated that she had sold two immovable properties during the financial year 2009-10. The AO issued a notice for non-filing and subsequently reopened the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. In response to the notice under section 148, the appellant filed her return of income on July 14, 2017, declaring nil income.
During the assessment proceedings, the appellant claimed that she had sold only one property at 190-A/1, Gautam Nagar, which was inherited along with her sister, Mrs. Geeta. The sale consideration was equally divided between them, and the amount was reinvested in purchasing a new property. The AO observed that the property was purchased by the appellant’s mother in 1992 for Rs.1,25,000 and sold in 2009 for Rs.24,00,000. However, the AO noted discrepancies in the documentation and added Rs.16,29,740 as long-term capital gain.
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the submissions and passed a sketchy order. The CIT(A) simply reproduced the remand report of the AO and upheld the addition without examining the evidence provided by the appellant.
The ITAT examined the grounds of appeal and the evidence presented:
The tribunal found merit in the appellant’s contention that the CIT(A) failed to properly address the issues raised and did not provide a detailed reasoning for the decision. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should have thoroughly reviewed the evidence and provided a speaking order.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate consideration to the appellant’s submissions. The non-attendance of the appellant could not be presumed as culpable negligence, given the circumstances.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for a fresh hearing. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity for the appellant to present her case and to pass a detailed and speaking order after considering all the evidence. The appellant was cautioned to attend the proceedings diligently and without any delay.
The tribunal’s order was pronounced in the open court on September 14, 2021, by Accountant Member Shri R.K. Panda.
Member: Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member
Copy forwarded to:
Sangeeta vs. ITO Ward-53(5), New Delhi – 2010-11 – Appeal for Capital Gain Computation
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform