MUKESHBHAI CHIMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 801/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mukeshbhai Chimanlal Patel against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The primary issues in the appeal included the underreporting of long-term capital gains, disallowance of investment under section 54EC, disallowance of a mediclaim policy deduction under section 80D, and the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with the procedural requirements to substantiate his claims at the earlier stages and thus remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.801/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-2022) Mukeshbhai Chimanlal Patel, 2, Nishant Bunglows, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. [PAN :AXHPP4546 L] Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. (Present Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad.) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri PF Jain, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 34,57,473/- made by the A.O. for alleged under reporting long term capital gain in as much as that the long term capital gain computed as per report of registered valuer in as much as that the cost of acquisition computed by the assessee based on valuer's report ought to have been accepted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 801/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 2– 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- being investment made u/s 54EC out of the advance amount received on the sale of property without appreciating and considering the facts of the assessee and the disallowance made is submitted to be erroneous factually as well as legally. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,125/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80D of the Act on the ground of non submission of documentary evidence of mediclaim policy for the impugned amount. 4. He has erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234A of Rs. 1,80,460/-, Rs. 6,69,612/-u/s 234B and Rs. 1,18,353/- u/s 234C of the income tax Act. 5. The return income of the assessee ought to have been accepted without any variation. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and or modify any ground of appeal. 3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate its claim. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that assessee even failed to submit substantial documents before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who is the primary authority for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 801/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2025. S /- Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True C (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 12.12.2025 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "