AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 10.04.2026, passed by NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”).
In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an order dated 04.05.2021 through which an addition of Rs.203,66,500/- has been made on account of sale of property by the assessee. The assessment order has been passed in an ex parte manner since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices affording opportunity to him.
Thereafter, it appears that the matter travelled up to the ITAT where vide order dated 16.01.2024, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A).
In second round proceedings before the CIT(A), it is seen that considerable details were required to be filed by the assessee, as recorded on page 9 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the assessee did not file sufficient details and again suffered confirmation of addition in part with some portion of the transaction being remanded back to the Ld. AO for verification.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with basically two grounds of appeal challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A).
Before us the Ld. AR stated that the land in question was agricultural in nature and it was owned by the father of the assessee. It was the submission that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee since the land belonged to the father. It was a further submission that due to lack of knowledge and wrong advice by tax consultants from time to time the assessee could not make a proper presentation of facts before the authorities below. It was the prayer that this matter could be remanded back for one final time to the Ld. AO so that all the documents can be submitted for a fair appraisal.
The Ld. DR pointed out that these were second round proceedings and the assessee has failed to provide the necessary evidence in spite of the ITAT indulging him once. It was the submission that in the absence of documents to show that the property is agricultural in nature and the same belongs to the father of the assessee, there was no other option but to presume that the transaction was of the assessee only.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that while the assessee is being extremely careless in pursuing the matter before the authorities below, we would go so far as to say that the conduct is certainly blame worthy. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order one more time and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO so that the assessee has one more chance to present the documents and facts before him. We may caution the assessee that in case this time around proper compliance is not made before the Ld. AO then the Ld. AO would be at liberty to take an adverse view in the matter.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.