RAJKUMAR NATHALAL VADHVA,PRABHAS PATAN V. ITO, N-E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 32/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was based on an assessment made under sections 147 and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment included an addition of Rs. 71,00,000 as Long Term Capital Gain from the sale of immovable property, which the appellant contested as unjustified and without proper basis. The Tribunal noted the appellant's lack of opportunity to adequately present his case during the initial proceedings and decided to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473128 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA; LD
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 133(6); 234B

Judgement Text

" ITANo.32/RJT/2024 Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva 3आयकरअपील यअ\u000bधकरण,राजकोट\u0012यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 32/RJT/2024 (\rनधा\u0011रणवष\u0011/Assessment Year: (2013-14) \rनधा\u0011\u0015रतीक\u0017ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR \u001a\u001bयथ\u001d ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Ld. Sr.(DR) सुनवाईक\u0017तार!ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणाक\u0017तार!ख/Date of Pronouncement : 25 / 11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 21.11.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva, Shiv Krupa, Pat Chakala, Lambi Sheri, Veraval, Prabhas Pathan, Dist. Junagadh - 362268 Vs. Income tax officer, National E- statement Centre, Delhi 'थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFHPV3254M (अपीलाथ\u001d/Appellant) (\u001a\u001bयथ\u001d/Respondent) ITANo.32/RJT/2024 Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva 27.09.2021 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are follows: i. Proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act and issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is void ab initio, illegal and bad in law and the assessment based on such illegal and invalid initiation is deserved to be quashed and the same may kindly be quashed. ii. The order of the Ld. AO in so far as he assessed the total income at Rs. 71,00,000/- is totally bad on facts as also in law. iii. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, the AO erred in making addition of Rs. 71,00,000/- as LTCG on the alleged ground of failure to provide justification of capital gain on sale of immovable property, though there is no reference of any such property in the assessment order. The addition made in total disregards to fact of the case and is totally unjustified and deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO erred in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of the IT Act. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the OA erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and engaged in the business of retail sale of food grain etc. No return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 filed. An information has been received rom the Sub- registrar that appellant purchased/sale immovable property in excess Rs.30,00,000/-. Therefore, AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the basis of information received dated 09.01.2020. Ld. AO also asked to assessee to give clarification on the same and provide documentary evidences in support of the immovable property purchased. In response to the above notice the appellant has replied vide letter date 03.03.2020 that he has not purchased or sold any such property as referred to in the notice. However, the Ld. AO has not considered the reply and reopened the assessment proceedings. Thereafter the Ld. AO passed assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the on 27.09.2021 made an addition of Rs.71,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain earned on the sale of immovable property. ITANo.32/RJT/2024 Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva 3. That Feeling Aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2021 the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). That the appellant has not submitted any written submission or compliance of notices during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). That the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of grounds of appeal filed with form 35. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has denied about carrying out any property transaction during the year under consideration, it is incumbent upon AO to inquire about the truth from the sources from where the information was received. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity for submission in the case. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative fairly submitted that since the assessment order is passed on the basis of best judgment u/s 144 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of record. However, the Ld. DR has not objected to the prayer of the appellant. 6. We have heard and considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that Despite various notice given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant but the appellant did not comply with notice. We note that before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has not offered any explanation on the failure to provide justification of capital gain on sale of immovable property. Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. A.O has passed the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act assessed total income of Rs.71,00,000/- and made an addition of Rs.71,00,000/- as Long-Term Capital Gain earned on the sale of immovable property. We are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to present his case. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances ITANo.32/RJT/2024 Shri Rajkumar Nathalal Vadhva of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant details and explanation as furnished by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25 /11/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot True Copy *दनांक/ Date: 25/11/2024 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 "