MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT V. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 280/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which included a substantial addition of Rs. 66,78,350 as short-term capital gain. The appellant argued that the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) was erroneous as it was made ex-parte and without considering the appellant's replies. The appellant also contested the jurisdiction and the procedural validity of the notices issued under sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the absence of a fair hearing and the need for a thorough examination of the presented documents and arguments, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716598 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: JAIMIN SHAH; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 139

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण,राजकोटÛयायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 280/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki Rajkot, Kolki SO, Rajkot-360470 बनाम /Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ASTPC9150G (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Appellant by : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजèवकȧओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/Date of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Order (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”,dated 12.03.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 28.02.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.280/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara “01. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Center(NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act 1961 and therefore it requires to be set aside. 02. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Center has not considered the reply filed on 11/03/2025, however without considering the same order passed Ex- parte is bad in law illegal and prejudicial to the interest of the appellant, hence the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Center is required to be re- consideration. 03. That the addition sustained by the Ld. NFAC AO of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain for A.Y 2016-17 is against the facts on record, therefore the heavy addition made by Ld. A.O. is require to be deleted. 04. That the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction and therefore the notice issued u/s 148 dated 24/03/201 require to be quashed. 05. That the assessee has filed his reply on 04/03/2023 against the notice u/s 148A of the IT Act. 1961 as well as on 21/11/2023 against the notice dated 09/11/2023 however without considering the reply the order passed by A.O. u/s 144 of the IT Act, is against the principal of natural justice and therefore the heavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required to be deleted. 06. That the appellant has purchased the land under question on 06/08/2010 and sold on 19/06/2015 which is Long term capital gain, however without making proper inquiry addition made as short term capital gain is against the provision of section 148A and sec. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and therefore the assessment made may please be quashed. 07. That the assessee is an agriculturist and sold the agriculture land which is exempt however without appreciating the facts, and without making further inquiry addition made as short term capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against the documents available on records and therefore the heavy addition made of Rs 66,78,350/-requires to be deleted. 08. That the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of Income as well as not concealed and Income and therefore the penalty proceedings Initiated us 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 1961 is requires to be dropped. 09. That the assessee has complied the notices of the AO however without considering the reply filed, penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(b) is against the facts on record and as such the penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act 1961 requires to be dropped. 10. That the appellant is an individual and not having any taxable Income and as such not required to file Income Tax return u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore, the penalty initiated u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act 1961 is require to be dropped. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.280/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara 11. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged us 234A 234B, 234Cand 234D requires to be deleted. 12. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, and Ld. CIT(A) passed appellate order in ex-parte proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A) due to mistake committed by the advocate of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now assessee is ready with the documents and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel therefore prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has raised no objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities, however, he submitted that cost should be imposed on the assessee on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. On account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.280/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara impose a cost of Rs. 2000/- on the assessee which is to be deposited in the account of Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant before the Assessing Officer at the time of de novo assessment proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order, which is fair and judicious. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 19/08/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/Judicial Member लेखासदèय/ Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 19/08/2025 ak आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant  Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent  आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT  आयकरआयुÈत(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड[फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.280/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara सहायकपंजीकार आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "