IMRANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1438/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Imranbhai Patel, the Sarpanch of Tandalja, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal arose from an assessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which involved the sale of two immovable properties. The Assessing Officer treated the capital gains from these sales as short-term capital gains due to non-compliance and non-provision of necessary details by the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to delay and non-attendance without considering the merits. The Tribunal, after hearing the case, decided to condone the delay and set aside the matter for re-assessment, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-cooperation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793567 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member Imranbhai Patel Tandalja Sarpanch Faliyu Vadodara-390012 PAN:AWUPP7142C (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate, Revenue Represented: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 24-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 25-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. ITA No: 1438/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1438/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO 2 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the order on account of non attendance without considering the Grounds of Appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant had sold property a sum of Rs.84,00,000/- despite the fact that on the Grounds of Appeal it was stated that these were only one property which was sold by the appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant was guilty of latches or negligence and does not take appropriate steps to peruse the remedy for a period of 84 days for delay in filing the appeal. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.84,00,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer. 5. The appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold two immovable properties on 21.12.2017 for a consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/- each, totalling to Rs. 84,00,000/-. The stamp valuation authority, however, determined the value of the said properties at Rs. 23,84,673/- each, aggregating to Rs. 47,69,346/-. The Assessing Officer issued several notices to the assessee, but no compliance was made by the assessee. Since the assessee failed to respond to the notices and did not file any explanation, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the information uploaded by the Sub- Registrar, Vadodara in the statement of SFT under section 285BA(1), it was seen that the assessee sold two properties at Tandalia, Vadodara City to Aseem Mohammed Shabbir Sheikh for Rs. 42,00,000/- each. As the assessee did not provide any details Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1438/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO 3 relating to cost or date of acquisition, no benefit of indexation or long-term capital gain treatment was given by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer treated the capital gains as short term capital gains. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- under the head “Capital Gains” was made in the absence of any explanation from the assessee. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) observed that there was a delay of 47 days in filing of appeal before him. However, CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the assessee’s case. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 318 days in filing of the present appeal before us. In the said application, the assessee has submitted that delay in filing of appeal both before CIT(Appeals) as well as before us was unintentional and the Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interests of justice. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard the submissions of the assessee and perused the material on record. The assessee has sought condonation of delay Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1438/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO 4 of 318 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons explained by the assessee are that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was not noticed and therefore the assessee could not file the appeal in time before the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) was dismissed both on account of non-attendance and delay vide order dated 11.06.2024. The assessee has further explained that even this order of the CIT(A) escaped his attention and it was only upon attachment of his bank account on 14.02.2025 that he came to know about the said appellate order. Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a Chartered Accountant and filed the present appeal before this Tribunal along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the fact that the assessee has demonstrated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was occasioned on account of bona fide circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. In the interests of justice, we therefore condone the delay of 318 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 8. With respect to the request of the Counsel for the assessee to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer in the interests of justice, we are of the considered view that looking into the instant facts there has been complete non-cooperation on part of the assessee at all stages of tax proceedings. Accordingly, we are hereby imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for setting the matter aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, which shall be deposited with Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1438/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Imranbhai Patel. Ltd. vs. ITO 5 the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund before the next date of hearing before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall verify the payment of the said cost before proceeding with the matter. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 25/09/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "