Ramaiah Pushpavati Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee entered into a JDA & handed over possession of part of her property on 01.08.2014 for development of Blocks 1 & 2 of the “Sterling Infinia” project. The AO reopened assessment u/s 147 on the ground that transfer u/s 2(47)(v) occurred in AY 2015-16. He computed LTCG of ₹16.51 crore by adopting FMV of ₹7,900 per sq.ft. (21,061 sq.ft × 7,900 = ₹16.63 crore). Additionally, cash deposits of ₹9 lakh were noticed in her bank account. Assessee claimed that deposits were out of rental income & past cash balance, but since no rent details/agreements were produced, AO treated it as unexplained u/s 68. Total income was assessed at ₹18.04 crore u/s 147/143(3).
On appeal, CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for default, observing that Assessee neither filed submissions nor sought adjournment, & mechanically confirmed the AO’s order.
Before ITAT, Assessee argued that she had indeed filed an adjournment request on 13.02.2025 stating that her CA was unwell & more time was required to compile records. However, CIT(A) ignored this & dismissed the appeal the same day, without adjudicating on merits.
Tribunal observed that u/s 250(6), CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order on each ground of appeal. An appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution alone. Since adequate opportunity was denied & no findings on merits were given, ITAT held that this was a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
