SHANTICHAND BALCHAND BORAR, AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), VEJALPUR

ITA 33/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2849 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KETAN GAJJAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAIYAM
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I. T. A. No . 33/Ahd/202 4 ( नधा रण वष / As sess ment Year : 2013 -1 4) Sh a n t i ch a n d B a lc h an d B o r ar N -1 0 1, O r c h id Wh i tef ie ld , N ea r M a k a r b a R ai l w a y C r os sin g, M a k a r b a , G uj ar a t 3 80 05 1 बनाम/ Vs . T h e I n c o me T ax O f f ic e r W ar d 5 ( 3 ) (2 ), Ve j a l p ur , A h m e da b ad थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G I R N o . : A E H PB 5 3 4 6 P (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam V. Shah, A.Rs. यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR D a t e o f H ea ri ng 01/04/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u nc e me n t 24/04/2024 O R D E R Th e appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21. 08.2 023 p asse d by the Nation al Faceless Ap peal Centre (NF AC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by not quashing the reassessment proceeding and annulling the assessment order passed as the same is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of Rs.16,83,123/- of indexed value of improvement cost and transfer expense and therefore the learned AO be directed to allow the said expense while computing total income. ITA No. 33/Ahd/2024 (Shantichand Balchand Borar vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 2 – 3. That the appellant craves liberty to add, amend and alter any ground of appeal before the final hearing.” 3. Th e assessee filed return of income fo r A. Y. 2013 -14 on 27. 09.2 013 declaring total inco me of R s. 21, 57, 210/-. A s per the in fo rmation available with the In co me Tax Department, the asses see clai med bogus ded uction of Rs. 1 6, 83,12 3/- b y co mputing lo ng term capital gain on sale of i mmovable property. The AO observed th at the asses see invested amount of R s. 96 Lakhs in time depo sits du ring F.Y. 2012 -1 3 sou rce of which is not kno wn. The case was reopen ed und er Section 147 of the Act and reaso ns were pro vided to the ass es see. Statutory notices were is su ed to the asses see and the same wa s s erved . The asse ssee faile d to resp ond to the n otices an d, therefo re, the AO pas sed as se ssment order under Section 1 44 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 16, 83,1 23/- th ereby disallowing th e cost of i mp ro vement and brokerage expenses on account of cost on transpo rt. 4. Being aggriev ed by the asses sment order, th e asse ss ee filed appeal befo re the CIT(A). Th e CIT( A) dis mi s sed the appeal of the asses see. 5. Th e ld. AR sub mi tted that the asses see has n ot receiv ed the notices either before th e AO as well as b efore the CIT(A). Th erefore, the ld. AR sub mitted th at the matter may be remand ed back to the file of the ld. AO for proper ad judication an d allow the asses see to file the requisite evidences. The ld. AR further sub mitted that th ere is a delay o f 60 d ays in filing the present ITA No. 33/Ahd/2024 (Shantichand Balchand Borar vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 3 – appeal. The same sho uld be condoned as the assessee is abov e 80 years and was no t aware ab out the Faceles s Scheme. 6. Th e ld. DR relied upon th e asse ss me nt order an d the order o f th e ld. CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevan t materials available on record. Th e delay appears to b e gen uine as stated in th e affidav it of the assess ee and, therefore, th e delay is condon ed. As reg ard s the a ssessment order an d the o rd er o f the ld. CIT(A), both the ord ers ar e silent on the se rv ice of statutory no tices se rv ed upon the asse ssee. Th e AO ha s not g iv en sufficient op portunity to th e asse ssee and, therefore, it will be ap propriate to remand back th is matter to the file of the ld . AO thereby taking o n record the details/evidences wh ich will be filed by th e asses see before the AO and thereafte r after veri fying the same, adjudicate the issue s as p er In co me Tax Statu te. Needless to say, the asses see be g iv en opportunity of hearing by following princip les o f natural justice. 8. In the result, appeal of th e assessee is partly allowed fo r statistical p urposes. This Order pronounced on 24/04/2024 Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/04/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. ITA No. 33/Ahd/2024 (Shantichand Balchand Borar vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 4 – 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. "वभागीय &त&न ध, आयकर अपील)य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड/ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील$य अ%धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad