CHANDRAKANT GAJANAN PARADHI,NAGPUR V. ITO WARD-3(4), NAGPUR

ITA 25/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi, the Assessee, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions to the Assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The additions were made on account of 'long term capital gain' and 'difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation' under sections 147, 144B, and 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had not challenged the penalty order in their appeal to the Commissioner, leading to an inadvertent affirmation of the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal decided to remand the case for a fresh decision on the assessment issues, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776398 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL BAHRI; LD.
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 147; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 25/NAG/2025 (Assessment Years : 2017-18) Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi, Plot No. 67, Saiecchasadan, Umred Road, Bahadura, Old Town, Nagpur PAN: BATPP 5726 N Vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Kapil Bahri, Ld. Advocate. Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (AY). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 25/NAG/2025 (Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 30/03/2022 u/sec.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on account of ‘long term capital gain’ and Rs. 17.77 lakhs on account of ‘difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation’ u/sec. 50C of the Act. 3. Though, the Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, as it appears from the impugned order, eventually made no compliance and, therefore, Ld.Commissioner by considering the material available on record and in the constrained circumstances, decided the appeal of the Assessee dismissing the same and affirming the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn attention of this Court to the ultimate findings arrived at by the Ld. Commissioner in para 4.3 of the impugned order, wherein it has specifically mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner “Hence, the AO’s action levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the present case is hereby confirmed and the sale ground of appeal is dismissed on merit also”. 5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and documents available on record and the orders passed by the authorities below. From Form No. 35 and the first part of the impugned order, it appears that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 25/NAG/2025 (Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) 3 Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner had challenged the re-assessment order dated 30/03/2022 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the Ld. AO but not the penalty order, but somehow may be overlooking or inadvertent mistake, Ld.Commissioner affirmed the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision on the issues involved in the relevant assessment order, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. In case of subsequent default, Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 6. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER vr/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 25/NAG/2025 (Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) 4 Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Nagpur The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Senior Private Secretary, ITAT, Nagpur. Printed from counselvise.com "