AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated 27.02.2026 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 06.01.2025 of Ld. Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed ITR of Rs. 8,990/. As per information in the case of the Assessee on Insight portal. The Assessee had received interest other than interest on securities under Section 94A of Rs. 57,15,604/- from Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and the total interest payable banking company HDFC Bank Limited amounting to Rs. 8,990/-, on reopening the case under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2204 was issued. Intimation under Section 144B dated 28.06.2024, notices under Section 142(1) dated 31.07.2024, 04.09.2024 letter to the Assessee dated 20.09.2024 Centralized Communication dated 04.10.2024 show cause notice under Section 144 of the Act dated 15.10.2021 and show cause notice dated 25.12.2024 were issued. The Assessee failed to submit any submissions. On completion of proceedings Ld.AO vide order dated 06.01.2025 made addition of Rs. 57,15,604/-.
Against order dated 06.01.2025 of Ld. AO, the Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2026.
Being aggrieved appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:-
“1.That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, inasmuch as no specific points for determination have been framed, nor have the grounds of appeal been adjudicated with reasons, rendering the order non-speaking, arbitrary and liable to be quashed
2.That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the appellant, including jurisdictional, legal and factual grounds, thereby vitiating the entire appellate order.
3.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of alleged non-compliance/non-prosecution, which is contrary to settled law, as the first appellate authority is duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits irrespective of appearance of the appellant.
4.That the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant.
5.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in mechanically confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without independent application of mind and without dealing with the material available on record, including the statement of facts, submissions and issues involved in the appeal, thereby rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable.
6.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹57,15,604/- as 'Income from Other Sources' by failing to appreciate that the amount was received against the relinquishment of rights in a capital asset (Plot at Yamuna Expressway). Such receipts are legally taxable only under the head 'Capital Gains' and not 'Income from Other Source”
7.That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly disclosed the transaction of surrender of plot and offered the same under the head “Capital Gains”, and without examining the nature of transaction, has wrongly confirmed the addition under the head “Income from Other Sources”.
8.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Insight Portal without independent application of mind without properly adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge, and therefore the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio.
9.That the assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.”
The Ld. Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex-parte order dated. 27.02.2026 dismissed the appeal. The matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.
The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee failed to comply with notices during departmental proceedings.
From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.02.2026 dismised the appeal in absence of assessee and non-filing of written submissions. Ex-pate assessment order dated 06.01.2025 was confirmed. Appellant/assessee has prayed for restoration of the matter to the file of Ld. AO.
In view of the above material facts in the interest of justice impugned orders dated 27.02.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) and 06.01.2205 of Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.