JAGDISHSINH BHAGWANSINH MAHIDA,NAVSARI V. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

ITA 1970/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was the dismissal of his appeal on procedural grounds for not filing a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Additionally, the appellant contested the assessment made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the additions made under the head of capital gains, particularly invoking Section 50C for a property transaction. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the non-consideration of additional evidence and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47210 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHITRANG VAYWALA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 144; 250; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1970/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida U-2, City Tower, Kaliyawadi, Green Road, Navsari-396427 Gujarat [PAN : AHYPM 9143 P] Vs. ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chitrang Vaywala, AR Respondent by: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 13.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee only on the ground that no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. ITA No.1970/Ahd/2024 Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida Vs.ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in passing order u/s 144 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition to the income of the assessee under the head of capital gains although land sold by assessee is not a capital asset. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.63,37,865/- as undisclosed long term capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act 1961. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives income from salary, interest, remuneration as well as income from agricultural activities. For the impugned year, the Assessing Officer was in possession of an information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 29,40,000/- and the value considered by the Sub-Registrar for charging stamp duty was Rs. 63,37,865/-. Since no return of income for the relevant assessment year i.e. A.Y 2012-13 had been filed by the assessee, the assessment was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer observed that, per the section 50C of the Act, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities is required to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain arising on transfer of land or ITA No.1970/Ahd/2024 Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida Vs.ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– building. Therefore, the value of property at Rs. 63,37,865/- was adopted by the Assessing Officer as sale consideration of property u/s.50C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, but the same was not considered by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence before him. He drew our attention paragraph no. 8.2 at page Nos. 7 & 8 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed before him. The Ld. AR, therefore, urged that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after taking into consideration the additional evidence already filed before him. The Ld. DR had no objection thereto. 7. We have perused the orders of the authorities below. In our opinion, it is necessary to look into the submissions of the assessee made before the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of the material / document (additional evidence) placed before the Ld. CIT(A) which he has not considered in his appellate order. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No.1970/Ahd/2024 Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida Vs.ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 4– to admit the additional evidences placed on record by the assessee and decide the case afresh after considering those additional evidences and also after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, in view of our above findings, we see no need to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 09/04/2025 btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "