NARROTAM MANJI PATEL,RAIGAD V. ITO WD 2, THANE

ITA 1240/MUM/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Narottam Manji Patel, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the additions made by the AO under the head of business income for the assessment year 2010-11. The additions were based on the transfer of lands to corporate entities, which the assessee and co-owners claimed not to have received any consideration for, and were contested in the Civil Court. The Civil Court later ruled in favor of the assessee, cancelling the sale deeds. The Tribunal, acknowledging the new evidence from the Civil Court, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33016 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H. PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: BIMLENDU BHUSHAN
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1240/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Narottam Manji Patel 01, Yogeshwr Krupa, Dongri Pulat Post Mahad, Raigad, 402301 Vs. ITO, Ward – 2 R.No. 29B, Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Thane – 4005604. PAN/GIR No. AKPPP6795C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bimlendu Bhushan Revenue by Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR सुनवाई क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Hearing 02.01.2025 घोषणा क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 06.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.12.2016, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming and upholding the additions made 2 ITA No. 1240/Mum/2017 Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai by AO. Therefore we have decided to dispose off these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. At the very outset, it is submitted by Ld. AR that as per order of assessment dated 30.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was computed thereby making addition under the head business income on the ground that assesee along with other co-owners had transferred lands mentioned in the order of assessment to corporate entities. 4. Whereas it is a specific stand of the assessee that assessee along with other co-owners had not received any consideration in cash or kind while transferring the lands during the year under consideration. It is also submitted that all the transfers were challenged before the Hon’ble Civil Court. But, without waiting for the decision of Hon’ble Civil Court the AO made addition which was upheld by Hon’ble CIT(A) as well. 5. It is argued that now Hon’ble Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 46/19 passed order dated 15.12.2021 in favour of the assessee and other co-owners thereby cancelling all the sale deeds which proves that assessee had not received any consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 3 ITA No. 1240/Mum/2017 Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai 7. After having heard counsels for both the parties and perusing the material placed on record and orders passed by the revenue authorities, we find that order of assessment and that of Ld. CIT(A) were passed on 30.03.2016 & 29.12.2016 respectively. Whereas the order of Hon’ble Civil Court has been passed subsequently i.e on 15.12.2021 and thus this development being the subsequent event was not available before the lower authorities at the time of dealing with the issue. Apart from the above our attention is also drawn to the fact that the case of other co-owners i.e Manji Banji Patel and Laxmiben Manji Patel have already been restored back to the file of AO for passing afresh orders in ITA Nos. 1242 & 1239/Mum/2017 respectively. 8. Therefore taking into consideration all the facts narrated by us above, we are of the view that the matter needs to be re-verified and re-adjudicated by the AO after considering the factual position and also taking into consideration the subsequent events i.e the orders passed by the Civil Court dated 15.12.2021 and we therefore restore the issue back to the file of AO to decide the matter afresh considering the submissions of both the parties. 9. Needless to say that the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to produce relevant documents 4 ITA No. 1240/Mum/2017 Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai before the Ld.AO, thus grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes with no order to costs. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 06/01/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "