REJESHRI OMPRAKASH MALVIYA,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4(1)(3)), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1053/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rajeshri Omprakash Malviya against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the disallowance of an exemption claimed under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.1,27,21,724. The assessee had claimed this amount as exempt under Section 54G due to the sale of agricultural land, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidences provided by the assessee, which were crucial for a fair adjudication of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34045 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIGNESH DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 250

Judgement Text

"ITA No.1053/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeshri Omprakash Malviya vs. ITO Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1053/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeshri Omprakash Malviya, 303, Shree Niketan Tower, Opp. Darpan Academy, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad – 380 013. [PAN – BPVPP 2763 N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1)(1), (Previously Ward – 4(1)(3), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Biren Shah, AR Revenue by Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.02.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act being bad in law, deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.10(37) of the Act of Rs.1,27,21.724/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, when no such disallowance is called for. ITA No.1053/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeshri Omprakash Malviya vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not dealing with any contention as raised before him and confirmed disallowance without any reason. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the additional evidence application duly filed by assessee under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 25.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,89,963/- for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 28.08.2015. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.11.2015 was issued and in response to these notices, the assessee’s AR attended the assessment proceedings and filed written submission. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “large deduction claimed under Section 54B, 54C, 54D 54G & 54GA of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,27,21,724/- on sale of land at Ratanpur and claimed the entire capital gain as exempt under Section 54G of the Act. The assessee was called upon to furnish various details but the assessee did not make any compliance. On 09.07.2016, the assessee’s Written Submission was taken on record and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,27,21,724/- in respect of income from capital gain thereby disallowing deduction/exemption under Section 54G/10(37) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Adjournment Application filed by the Ld. AR is rejected. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) only on the ground that the assessee has not given any satisfying and logical explanation despite filing the evidences before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has the notification dated 15.03.2012 as well as the certificate from the Talati of Ratanpur Village certifying that the land was used for agricultural purpose, along with Sale Deed which was submitted as additional evidence before the CIT(A) which has not been considered. the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside ITA No.1053/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeshri Omprakash Malviya vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the evidences and adjudicate the matter on merit. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not taken cognisance of the application filed by the assessee under Rule 46A dated 24.01.2024 for admission of additional evidences which should have been taken into account by the CIT(A) while deciding the appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) is directed to consider the evidences filed by the assessee including that of Notification dated 15.03.2012 and the relevant additional evidences and, after verifying the same, adjudicate the issues contested by the assessee therein. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 4th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 4th February, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad "