Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Ramesh Kumar Gupta, filed his return of income electronically on 31.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 55,10,400/-. The case was taken up for limited scrutiny for examination of the issue of capital gain/loss on the sale of immovable property. In response to statutory notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there was no response from the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act in the absence of the assessee, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,48,82,161/- on account of long-term capital gain. The total income was assessed at Rs. 2,03,92,561/- against the disclosed income of Rs. 55,10,400/-. The assessee carried the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but there was no representation on his behalf, leading to the dismissal of the appeal ex parte. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte for want of prosecution by the appellant assessee.
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in not deciding all the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant assessee.
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the validity of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act without complying with the provisions of the said section.
• 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taking the cost of acquisition of property sold at Rs. Nil against the cost of inflation index of Rs. 6882161/- declared by the assessee.
• 5. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the value of property sold taken at Rs. 18000000/- as per stamp valuation authority against the actual sale consideration/fair market value of property of Rs. 10000000/- received and declared by the assessee.
• 6. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer against the principal of natural justice and without following the provisions of section 143(3)/144 as valid.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Pradipta Kumar Guha Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Murtuza Kothari vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2)

  Mumbai benchAY 2015-16Partly Allowed

• Rina Ray

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Mr. Silvester Ligorio Rebello Vs. ITO-19(2)(2)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2010-11Partly Allowed

• Satyajae Shanbor Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi bench

• Tawfiqur Rahman

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-2014Allowed