Hansaben Babubhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Hansaben Babubhai Patel Vs ITO, condoned a 218-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the assessee’s capital gains dispute for Assessment Year 2018-19 to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee explained that she was a senior citizen unfamiliar with electronic gadgets and could not access the appellate order in time. Accepting this explanation, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
The assessee had not originally filed her return of income. The assessment was reopened after the Assessing Officer received information regarding sale of an immovable property for Rs. 66,00,000/- without the resulting capital gain being offered to tax. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.03.2022. The assessee explained that she held only a 50% share in the property and furnished her capital gains computation. She disclosed LTCG of Rs. 1,72,892/- in the return filed in response to that notice. However, the AO disputed the cost of acquisition, disallowed claimed transfer expenses of Rs. 4,65,000/- and computed LTCG at Rs. 8,20,297/-. The grounds of appeal challenged an addition of Rs. 6,47,405/-, including the disputed stamp duty amount of Rs. 99,250/- and transfer expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding the grounds on merits because there had been no compliance.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s representative attributed the non-compliance to counsel and requested another opportunity. The appeal grounds also stated that notices had been sent to an email address belonging to another person who had not informed the assessee. The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had participated before the AO and furnished her LTCG working. Considering her age and unfamiliarity with online compliance, it directed the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity of being heard and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. The assessee was also directed to comply during the remand proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes; the Tribunal did not finally decide the disputed capital gains computation or allow the claimed deductions.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].
2. There was delay of 218 days in filing of this appeal. A condonation application has been filed by the assessee explaining the reason for delay. It has been explained that the assessee is a senior citizen and she was not conversant with the electronic gadgets. Therefore, she could not access the appellate order in time, which resulted in delay in filing of this appeal. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 66,00,000/- during the year but the capital gain derived thereon was not offered to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022. Before the AO it was explained that the assessee was only 50% co-owner of the property. The assessee had also submitted the computation of cost of acquisition before the AO, which, however, was rejected. Further, the transfer expense of Rs. 4,65,000/- claimed by the assessee was also disallowed. The AO had worked out Long Term Capital Gain derived by the assessee at Rs. 8,20,297/- and accordingly the assessment was completed.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
5. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:
1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 15.10.2025 for A.Y.2018-19 by NFAC CIT(A), Delhi (for short “CIT(A)”] upholding the addition of Rs.6,47,405/- towards LTCG on sale of immovable property is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
1.2. The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there was a sufficient cause for failure to respond to the notices issued u/s 250 because the appellant was not informed by the party on whose mail id the said notices were issued. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellant should be allowed the opportunity to present her case in the appellate proceedings. The appellant is very much interested in pursuing the appeal since she is aggrieved by it.
1.3 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant could not give response to the notices because she was not informed and the email id did not pertain to her.
2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming the addition the addition of Rs.6,47,405/- towards LTCG on sale of immovable property.
2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in the addition of Rs.6,47,405/- towards LTCG on sale of immovable property
2.3 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing % of stamp duty at Rs.99,250/- and transfer expenses of Rs.4,65,000/- while computing the LTCG.
It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs.6,47,405/- upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted.
6. Shri Samir Vora, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted at the outset that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He explained that the assessee is a senior citizen and she was depended upon his counsel for making the compliance. According to the Ld. AR the non-compliance of the assessee was due to the fault of the counsel. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
7. Per contra, Shri Tapan Kumar Chattergee, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the lower authorities.
8. We have considered the rival submissions. Before the AO, the assessee had made the compliance and filed her working of LTCG derived on sale of the property. As per working of the assessee, the LTCG derived was Rs.1,72,892/- only which was duly disclosed in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO had, however, disallowed certain transfer expenses and disputed the cost of acquisition and computed the LTCG at Rs. 8,20,297/-. The ground taken by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not adjudicated on merits in the absence of any compliance. Considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and not conversant with the process of online compliances, we deem it proper to allow another opportunity to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and, thereafter, decide the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. The assessee too is directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of set aside proceeding.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 16/10/2026 at Ahmedabad.
