RAMRATAN SAHEBRAO PUNDKAR,AKOT V. ITO WARD - 3, AKOLA, AKOLA

ITA 397/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 27,52,500 to his income, which was the difference between the stamp duty value of a property and the purchase consideration declared. The addition was initially made by the AO and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant argued that his right to a personal hearing via video conferencing was denied, which he claimed violated the principles of natural justice and the guidelines of the CBDT. The Tribunal, referencing a decision by the Gujarat High Court, found that the failure to provide a video conferencing facility for a personal hearing was a breach of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the lower authorities' orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773138 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Tyger Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: K.P. DEWANI; LD; FILING A CONDONATION
• Keywords: Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 56(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 397/NAG/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar, 1, Suman Vihar, Akola Road, Akot, Maharashtra. PAN: ABPPP 9146 A Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Akola (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26/12/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.397/NAG/2024 (Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar) 2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 130 days in filing the instant appeal. The Assessee by filing a condonation application along with duly sworn affidavit dated 02/07/2024 prayed for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons assigned by the Assessee, appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional, hence, delay of 130 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) by assessment order dated 19/04/2021 made the addition of Rs. 27,52,500/- being difference between the stamp duty value of the property at Rs. 62,52,500/- as per the stamp authority and the purchase consideration declared by the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 35 Lac u/sec. 56(2) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, who by considering the value determined by Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), affirmed the addition made by the Ld. Ld. AO. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of Ld.Commissioner before this Court. The Assessee, at the outset, demonstrated the fact that Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings, despite asking specifically to provide Video Conferencing facility, not afforded the same and thus, violated the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.397/NAG/2024 (Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar) 3 principles of natural justice and/or guidelines laid down by the CBDT. Further, Ld. Commissioner as well, in the impugned order though mentioned that the Assessee had sought for Video Conferencing facility, however, held that Assessee cannot challenge the assessment order only on the basis that he was not provided personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as the Assessee was granted various opportunities by sending notices u/sec. 142(1) of the Act. 6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and specifically to the issue with regard to not affording the opportunity of hearing through Video Conferencing, which is a violation of relevant notifications issued by CBDT from time to time as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of in Tyger Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Anr. 2025 (8) TMI 386, holding that “if the assessee is not granted mandatory requirement of video conference for personal hearing, it would amount to breach of principles of natural justice”, consequently held that “the authorities have failed to follow the mandatory requirement of the Standard Operating Procedure, and therefore, the impugned Assessment Order as well as the demand notice, would not stand at all”. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.397/NAG/2024 (Ramratan Sahebrao Pundkar) 4 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analyzations, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the case is remanded to the file of Ld. AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 23.09.2025 as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER vr/- Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Nagpur The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur. Printed from counselvise.com "