Dharmender Gotam Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Remands Case Because CIT(A) Dismissed Appeal Without Deciding Joint Property Dispute on Merits; Ex Parte CIT(A) Order Set Aside Because Section 250(6) Requires Reasoned Findings; ITAT Orders Fresh Hearing Because Appeal Was Dismissed Through Cryptic Non-Speaking Order; Assessment Based on Unverified Third-Party Information Requires Proper Examination.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal arose from an assessment order dated 15.01.2025 passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act.
At the outset, the Tribunal condoned a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted that he was not familiar with technical legal procedures and was under the bona fide belief that the matter had concluded before the CIT(A). The Tribunal accepted the explanation and relied upon Supreme Court judgments including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy while condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice.
The assessee challenged additions made on account of immovable property transactions, share trading, futures and options transactions, and alleged escaped income. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer incorrectly attributed the entire value of jointly owned immovable property transactions to him instead of considering only his proportionate share. According to the assessee, a property purchased for Rs.41 lakh was jointly acquired with his brother, making his share only Rs.20.50 lakh, while property sold for Rs.53 lakh was also jointly owned among several co-owners, reducing the assessee’s attributable share to Rs.13.25 lakh instead of the figure of Rs.10.90 crore adopted by the Assessing Officer.
