NARMADABEN RAJIVBHAI UGHREJA,MORBI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

ITA 460/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Narmadaben Rajivbhai Ughreja, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the CIT(A) regarding the assessment of long-term capital gains and unexplained cash deposits for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The ITO had re-assessed the appellant's income, adding Rs. 44,44,504 as long-term capital gains and Rs. 8,00,000 as unexplained money, based on the difference between the sale consideration of an agricultural land and its stamp valuation. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, citing non-compliance by the appellant in providing necessary submissions. The Tribunal, however, noted the absence of evidence on the service of notices to the appellant and granted a remand for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824961 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV. LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT SHINGALA; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.460/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Narmadaben Rajivbhai Ughreja At-Bela, Ta.-Morbi, Dist.-Rajkot, Gujarat - 363642 Vs. The ITO, Ward – 1, Morbi Income Tax Office, Morbi-363642 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACDPU6278R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY)-2016-17, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 04.06.2025, which in turn assessment order passed by Income Tax Department/Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts, in not considering the request for Grant of Personal hearing through VC, and passing ex-parte order, presuming as if no response is filed by appellant. Principles of Natural Justice are violated. 2. Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making addition of Rs. 8,00,000 towards unexplained money, without considering facts and circumstances of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/RJT/2025 Naradaben Rajivbhai Ughreja Page 2 of 3 3. Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making addition of Rs. 44,44,504/- towards Long-term Capital Gains, without considering facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are, that the assessee is an individual who sold an agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.3,13,667/-. Later on the case was re- opened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of allegation that value adopted for Stamp Valuation Authority as per section 50c was to be taken at Rs.47,58,504/- Ld. AO admit that the nature and character of land on the date of sale was agriculture. However, despite of that mechanically applied section 50c without considering facts and circumstances of the case. Re- assessment got finalized making addition of Rs. 44,44,504/- towards LTCG and Rs. 8,00,000/-towards the cash deposited into Bank A/c. 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO vide order dated 21.03.2023 in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) with following observation: “8. In the present case, appellant has been provided more than sufficient opportunity but appellant failed to submit any submission or evidence during appeal proceedings in support of grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts, and remained non- compliant, therefore, in view of the above, I am constrained to uphold the order of the AO in absence of any supporting evidence, document presented by the appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed” 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal. 5.1. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submittedd that the assessee prayed for one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to represent the case before the lower authority. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 460/RJT/2025 Naradaben Rajivbhai Ughreja Page 3 of 3 5.2. On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has issued six notices dated 08.11.2024, 19.12.2024, 08.01.2025, 20.01.2025, 11.04.2025, and 21.05.2025 for hearing of the cases, but there was no compliance to the notice by the assessee. We note that the order of Ld.CIT(A)speaks that notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A) for hearing of the case but the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is silent on the service of the notice. Therefore, we are of the view, that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld.CIT(A). It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 29/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) (Dinesh Mohan Sinha) Accountant Member Judicial Member Rajkot //True Copy// (True Copy) Ǒदनांक/ Date: 29/12/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "