ITAT Delhi Remands Joint Property Case: CIT(A)'s Non-Speaking Ex Parte Order Held Unsustainable Under Section 250(6)

Case Overview

Case: Dharmender Gotam Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Assessment Year: 2017-18
**Appeal No.😗* ITA No. 8635/Del/2025
Assessment Order Date: 15.01.2025
CIT(A) Order Date: 22.09.2025

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, recently adjudicated a significant appeal involving complex questions of co-ownership of immovable property, securities transactions, and the procedural obligations of the first appellate authority under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case arose from an assessment framed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B, wherein the Assessing Officer made additions aggregating to Rs. 33,48,17,352/- primarily on the basis of high-risk transaction data flagged on the Insight Portal of the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal's ruling carries substantial significance not merely for the parties involved but also for the broader jurisprudence governing appellate procedure — specifically the mandatory requirement that a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) must pass a reasoned, speaking order addressing each issue on merits, irrespective of whether the assessee appears or not during appellate proceedings.

Background: How the Assessment Was Initiated

The assessee in this case had not filed any return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Insight Portal of the Income Tax Department flagged several high-value transactions attributed to the assessee as a non-filer, warranting scrutiny. The transactions identified and relied upon by the Assessing Officer were as follows:

On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer concluded that income of approximately Rs. 39,62,09,866/- had escaped assessment. Consequently, notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 24.02.2024, followed by notice under Section 148 dated 15.03.2024. Multiple further opportunities were provided through notices under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice under Section 144. The Assessing Officer also conducted independent enquiries under Section 133(6) with the relevant bank, NSE, and the Sub-Registrar VI-C, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi.

Despite all these opportunities, the assessee neither filed a return of income nor submitted any response. As a result, the Assessing Officer completed an ex parte best judgment assessment under Sections 147, 144, and 144B vide order dated 15.01.2025, making additions totalling Rs. 33,48,17,352/-.

Grounds Raised Before the Tribunal

The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which can be broadly categorised as follows:

1. Incorrect Attribution of Joint Property Transactions

One of the core grievances of the assessee related to immovable property transactions. The assessee contended that:

• A property at Sultanpur Mazra was purchased for Rs. 41,00,000/- jointly by the assessee and his brother, making each co-owner's share Rs. 20,50,000/- — not the full Rs. 41,00,000/-.
• A property at Singhu was sold for Rs. 53,00,000/- (not Rs. 10,90,00,000/- as reflected in Form 26AS and adopted by the Assessing Officer). This property was jointly owned by the assessee along with his brother Parveen Gautam, where the assessee and his brother held a 1/2 share, Jia Prakash and Vinod Gautam held 1/3 share, and Akshay Gautam, Jugal Gautam, and Lalita held the remaining 1/6 share. Accordingly, the assessee's actual attributable share was only Rs. 13,25,000/-.

The assessee's position was that the Assessing Officer's attribution of Rs. 10,90,00,000/- as the sale consideration in the hands of the assessee was factually incorrect and legally impermissible, since the entire joint property value cannot be assessed in the hands of a single co-owner.

2. Discrepancies in Securities Transaction Data