PRAVEEN DAGA,GUWAHATI V. ITO WARD 6(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1309/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Praveen Daga against the order of the Learned CIT(A), which had remanded the assessment back to the Assessing Officer. The original assessment was under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The dispute centered on the timing of the sale deed execution and the receipt of sale consideration for a property. The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) was justified in remanding the case without a final adjudication based on the documents submitted during the appellate proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469915 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Praveen Daga House No. 7, Opp. Overnite Express Ltd. Bye Lane No. 3, Rupali Path Zoo Road, Guwahati, Assam. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEAPD8832P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT (Thr. V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :25/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Assessee-appellant is feeling aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 06.12.2018, passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been set aside, and the matter 2 ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 Praveen Daga vs. ITO remanded to the Assessing Officer with the direction for passing of assessment order afresh. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that even though the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, despite notices, during appellate proceedings all relevant documents were submitted by the assessee, whereupon Learned CIT(A), NFAC called for remand report from the Assessing Officer, but even then, no final adjudication was made. The contention is that in the given situation, Learned CIT(A) should have taken into consideration the entire material verified by the Assessing Officer, and decided the appeal on merits, instead of remanding back the matter to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment. 4. On behalf of the department, it cannot be disputed that as regards the documents submitted by the assessee-appellant before Learned CIT(A), remand report was called, but even then the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR has referred to para 3.5 of the remand report wherein the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to submit documents in support of the plea that some dispute was going on 3 ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 Praveen Daga vs. ITO regardingthe subject land, and also documents in support of receipt of payment by Shri Khushal Chand Daga. As further pointed out, the assessee failed to explain before the Assessing Officer as to why the sale was got registered in the October, 2010, when the agreement to sell was executed in January, 2001. Therefore, Ld. DR contended that Learned CIT(A) was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. 5. In order to appreciate the above contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would relevant to refer to the reply dated 30.08.2024 submitted by the assessee to the remand report. As per said response, the assessee had produced in the remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer following 7 documents.  Copy of papers related to land.  Copy of sale deed dt. 05.10.2010.  Copy of Power of Attorney.  Copy of documents of land related to earlier owner.  Copy of affidavit of land owner Sh. Khushal Chand Daga.  Copy of Affidavit of the assessee.  Copy of affidavit of purchasers. 6. It is true that the assessee did not produce before the Assessing Officer, or during the appellate proceeding, any document to show that 4 ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 Praveen Daga vs. ITO there was some dispute going on as regards the said land, but, the question arises whether any such document was required, when the assessee had produced the above said set of documents ? On going through the copy of sale deed dated 05.10.2010, available at page 16 to 25 of the paper book of the appellant, it would transpire that the same was executed by the assessee, only in the capacity of a Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Khushal Chand Daga. Copy of the said Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2002 is available at page 26 to 28 of said paper book. It was executed by Shri Khushal Chand Daga in favour of the assesseeappointing him as his Power of Attorney to perform various acts, including to sale the subject immovable property i.e. plot No. K-29, Scheme No. 4, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 7. As is available from the sale deed, on 01.06.2001, Khushal Chand Daga, who claimed himself to be owner of the subject property, executed an agreement to sell in respect of the said plot, in favour of Anupam Sharma party No. 2 therein, and also received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of entire sale consideration. This goes to show that the entire sale consideration was received by Shri Khushal Chand Daga in the year 2001 itself. Copy of the agreement to sell also forms part of the paper book of the appellant. 5 ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 Praveen Daga vs. ITO It was on the basis of above said Power of Attorney executed by Sh. Khushal Chand that Shri Praveen Daga, the assessee executed sale deed in favour of Shri Anupam Sharma. 8. As noticed above, the entire sale consideration had already been received. It is a significant to note that even possession of the plot was delivered by Shri Khushal Chand Daga to the proposed buyer, at the time of execution of the agreement itself i.e. 15.06.2001. Simply because the sale deed came to be executed about 9 years after the execution of the agreement, the department could not doubt the sale transaction in respect of said plot, especially when the entire sale consideration was received by Khushal Chand Daga, the owner in June, 2001 itself. This goes to show that the assessee had no income from the said sale transaction either in the FY 2001- 2002 or in the F.Y. 2010-11. Consequently, it can safely be said that as regards the assessee there was no incident of tax so as to make him liable for payment of income tax. Result 9. In view of the above discussion and the reasons, the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained and same deserves to be set aside. 6 ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024 Praveen Daga vs. ITO Consequently this appeal is allowed, and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside, while holding that the assessee- appellant was not liable for payment of any income tax, as regards the said transaction of sale of the above said immovable property by its actual owner by Khushal Chand Daga. File consignment to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Praveen Daga, Guwahati, Assam. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1309/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "