Kaushal Kumar Parmar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Assessee did not file ROI originally. Based on information regarding sale of immovable property and cash deposits, AO issued notice u/s 148. Assessee then filed return declaring income of ₹10,43,400. AO completed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, making a massive addition u/s 45 by taking the entire gross sale consideration of ₹7,26,82,500 as taxable capital gains, resulting in assessed income of ₹7,37,25,900.
Before CIT(A)/NFAC, assessee did not attend hearings fixed on 05/03/2025, 19/03/2025, 05/05/2025 & 27/05/2025. CIT(A), therefore, passed an ex-parte order, also rejecting assessee’s claim that the land was rural agricultural land outside municipal limits. CIT(A relied on a PMRDA certificate to hold that it fell within municipal jurisdiction.
In appeal before ITAT, assessee explained that his ownership itself was under dispute due to litigation surrounding his grandfather’s WILL, and therefore he could not produce the necessary documents before CIT(A). Assessee also argued that CIT(A)’s order was non-speaking, lacking reasons as mandated by s.250(6).
Tribunal observed that:
- CIT(A)’s order was not a detailed speaking order,
- Key issues—including the validity of ownership, nature of land, and taxability u/s 45—were not adjudicated on merits,
- Assessee’s non-compliance was explained by ongoing family litigation.
Accordingly, ITAT held that interest of natural justice required a fresh adjudication. The entire matter was remitted to CIT(A) for de novo disposal, with directions to give adequate opportunity. Assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant & avoid unnecessary adjournments. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
