MINAKSHI,KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

ITA 1300/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Minakshi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Jaipur -4, which was dated 27.08.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary grievances included the ex parte decision by the CIT(A), improper initiation of reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, and incorrect assessment of long-term capital gains. The ITAT noted that the AO had made additions to the assessee's income based on a sale agreement found during a survey, which was not registered and lacked proper documentation. The ITAT found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to represent her case, which led to the decision to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708729 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 139; 133A

Judgement Text

" vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1300/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Smt. Minakshi W/0 Shri Ramlal Bairwa 2211/A, Type 3, Railway Workshop Colony, Rangpur, Kota- 324 002 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-Tonk LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: FLVPM 1132E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 15 /07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Jaipur -4 dated 27.08.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal of the appellant ex parte without properly providing opportunity to the appellant for representation of his case. Therefore, impugned Order for being violative to principle of natural justice deserve to be set aside and quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding u/s 147/148 of the act 2 ITA NO. 1300/JPR/2024 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK in absence of the proper reasons of belief of the escapement proceeding so initiated are bad in law and deserve to be quashed summarily. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in restricting the development expenditure to Rs. 20,000/- as against Rs. 4,16,666/- claimed by the appellant and had calculated the long-term capital gain and taxing Rs. 17,68,170/- as long-term capital gain without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. Thus, the addition so made is bad in law and the summarily. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) had clearly erred in deciding appeal of the assessee without giving a proper opportunity of hearing, Id. CIT(A) in a cursory and hasty manner had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Thus, on this sole ground alone, Order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to set aside and quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT (A) had passed the Impugned Order in complete violation of principle of natural justice and against the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts of the Country, wherein, the Hon'ble Courts has held that, Order passed in violation of Principle of Natural Justice needs to be set aside and Quashed. Thus, Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be set-aside. 6. That, impugned order is clearly based on the surmises and conjectures and completely missing the information and material which is sine qua non for passing order u/s 147/148 of the act. Therefore, the impugned order for being arbitrary and illegal deserve to be set aside & quashed. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of ld. AO in adding Rs. 17,68,170/-in the hands of assessee by treating the same as her Long-Term Capital Gain in complete ignorance of the position of law as laid down by various High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of Id. AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing in spite of notice for hearing of the appeal on 09-07-2017. Consequently the 3 ITA NO. 1300/JPR/2024 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK Bench is left with no alternative but to decide the appeal on merits, ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing ld. DR and after perusal of the materials available on record. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act in the case of Shri Dinesh Chourasia, R/o Tonk on 29-10-2019, a sale agreement dated 18-01-2012 was found. It is noted that through this sale agreement, the assessee alongwith her other 5 family members namely Shri Charan Singh, Shri Bharat Singh (brothers), Smt. Sharda & Angoori (Sisters) and Smt. Phoola (mother) sold their property being land on Khasra No. 6454 measuring 2 bigha 6 bishwas situated in Tonk to Shri Mahendra Bairwa S/o Shri Ramchandra Bairwa R/o Motibagh, Tonk for total consideration of Rs.1,26,50,000/-. It is also noted that the sale agreement was not got registered with the Sub-Registrar. In this case, the AO while making assessment noted that the assessee Smt. Minakshi did not file her original return of income u/s 139 of the Act for the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25-03-2019 after recording reasons and getting approval of the competent authority. In response to the notice, the assessee electronically filed her return of income on 18-09-2019 4 ITA NO. 1300/JPR/2024 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK for the A.Y. 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs. Nil. Further Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued on 19-09-2019 & 20-09-2019. Finally, the AO completed the assessment vide order dated 16-10-2019 at a total income of Rs.17,68,170/-. 3.2 Being aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who in spite of providing various opportunities to the assessee and also not adducing the submissions / information from the side of the assessee to counter the assessment order, confirmed the action of the AO and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant narration is reproduced as under:- ‘’6.1…..During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any information/evidence to rebut the findings of the AO. It is specifically observed here that in spite of giving many opportunities of being heard to the appellant, as detailed above the appellant has chosen not to make any submission or furnish any information to substantiate and plead the grounds of appeal. Based on the material available on file and in absence of any new submission/ finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the AO. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 3.3 The Bench heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO vide assessment order dated 16-10-2019 made the addition of Rs. 17,68,170/- in the hands of the assessee holding that the reply sent by the assessee was not found acceptable by the AO which has also been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in 5 ITA NO. 1300/JPR/2024 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK spite of providing many opportunities to the assessee to counter the assessment order. The Bench noted that the assessee was not present during the course of hearing but the main grievance as emerges from grounds of appeal of the assessee is as under:- ‘’2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the , the AO has legally and factually erred in initiating the re-assessment proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Act in absence of proper reasons of belief of the escapement proceedings so initiated are bad in law and deserves to be quashed summarily.’ In view of the main grievance as raised above, the Bench feels that with a view to providing substantial justice, the matter should be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication in the matter for which the ld. DR has no objection. Hence, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.4 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any 6 ITA NO. 1300/JPR/2024 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 15 /07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15 /07/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Minakshi, Kota 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-Tonk 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1300/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "