AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT-Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083011495(1) dated 26-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO had grossly erred in making and the Ld. CIT-A had grossly erred in upholding an unlawful, factually misconceived, exorbitant and an arbitrary addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000, in the regular assessment order passed us 143(3)/144B of the Act, for the AY 2022-23, considering the same as receipts of understated long term capital gains in cash, on sale of an immovable property, by presuming the total sale consideration at Rs. 2,85,00,000/- (to the extent of appellants 50 percent share in immovable property), in complete disregard to the actual sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- (to the extent of appellants 50 percent share in immovable property), as duly evidenced by the registered sale deed of the said immovable property based on the applicable stamp duty valuation, and substantiated and corroborated by the corresponding receipts of Rs. 85,00000 in the Bank Account of the Appellant.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the impugned addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, being made by the learned AO and as upheld by the learned CIT(Appeals), in the impugned regular assessment order, passed under section 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, for the AY 2022-23, merely on the basis of a few pages of the alleged appraisal report of one alleged searched party, without evidencing any independent application of mind, and without conducting of any independent enquiry and without corroborating and substantiating the alleged receipt of on money by the appellant, by the learned assessing authority, is arbitrary, unlawful and factually misconceived.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned assessing authority had erred in making and the learned CIT(A) had erred in upholding the afore-stated unlawful, factually misconceived, exorbitant and an arbitrary addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, by presuming the sales consideration of the subject immovable property at Rs. 2,85,00,000/-, and presuming the receipt of the alleged understated amount of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in cash, by the appellant, merely on the basis of some alleged, uncertified and unsubstantiated whatsapp chats, referenced in some 9 pages of the alleged 56 pages appraisal report of a searched third party, without corroborating OR evidencing the said receipt of on money by the appellant, and without confronting OR providing with the appellant, the full set of documentary evidences/appraisal report OR any other material evidences as relied upon by the AO in making the said addition.
4.That the Ld AO had erred in making and the Ld CIT-A had erred in upholding the said unlawful, factually misconceived, exorbitant and an arbitrary addition of Rs. 2Cr, by presuming the sales consideration of the subject immovable property at Rs. 2.85Cr, and presuming the receipt of the alleged understated amount of sale consideration of Rs. 2Cr in cash, by the appellant, merely on the basis of some purported statement of third party recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, without giving any opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant, in view of the well settled and established legal position that any third party statement even recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, recorded behind the back of the assessee, without giving the assessee a lawful and valid opportunity of cross examining the said party, and without corroborating and substantiating of the same by some concrete tangible and cogent material by the AO, cannot be considered as an admissible piece of evidence.
5.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the alleged uncertified and unverified whatsapp chats, being considered as an electronic evidence by the learned AO, without corroborating and authentication of the said electronic evidences by way of a Certificate under section 65B(4) of the applicable Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be considered as an admissible piece of electronic evidences having any admissible value, in order to make the subject addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, in the impugned regular assessment order for the AY 2022-23. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, OR amend the above grounds of appeal, at OR before the time of hearing of appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the AY 2022-23 on the issue of “High Value of financial transaction of sale of immovable property during the year under consideration”. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 01.06.2023. The assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1,20,74,310/- on 30.12.2022 for the AY 2022-23 stipulated time of the due date of filing of return of income. In course of faceless assessment proceedings, it is noted that the assessee has derived income from salaries, long term capital gain and income from other sources. The assesse has responded to the notices issued and submitted written reply alongwith documentary evidences i.e. ITR AY 2022-23 declaring total income of Rs. 1,20,74,310/-, sale deed of Hyderabad property, sale deed of Thane property and ICICI Bank statement and computation of capital gain. Since adequate documentary evidences were not provided to the AO by the assessee with respect to the transactions of sale of immovable property of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, hence the same amount was added in the hands of the assessee. Against the action of the AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 26.11.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the action of the AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the lower authorities. The Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the lower authorities and could not file the relevant evidences before the lower authorities. The appeal was rightly rejected by the Ld. NFAC.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Lower authorities, the assessee did not file his reply/submissions, for which the Assessing officer completed the assessment ex-parte and appeal was also dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. NFAC.
Since in the instant case the assesse has failed to file his submission after availing the various opportunities. The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. The ld. AO framed the ex-parte assessment and Ld. NFAC also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The appeal should have been decided on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.