SEJAL JATIN AMIN,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY ACIT (OSD)-WARD-5), ANAND

ITA 1606/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sejal Jatin Amin against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2011-12. The primary issues in the appeal included the denial of a proper opportunity to be heard, rejection of condonation for delay in filing the appeal, and jurisdictional challenges regarding the assessment under section 147 instead of section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, there was a dispute over the addition of Rs. 97,98,500 as capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with procedural requirements in previous hearings but granted a final opportunity for compliance and proper representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780151 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDAY KISHANRAO KAKNE
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT SUTHAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1606/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sejal Jatin Amin, 5, Navrang Society, Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. [PAN :ADXPP1419 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Respondent by: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the condonation for delay in filing the appeal and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1606/Ahd/2025 Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– for non-compliance and non-pursuing of appeal. The appellant prays to direct the Ld CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard and condone delay in filing appeal before him. 3. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal raised above, the Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 147 of the Act though the case is re-opened based on the evidences found in the search proceedings at the third party premises and thus, the assessment is required to be made u/s. 153C of the Act. Thus, the order so passed by the Ld. AO is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed as illegal and void. 4. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal raised above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 97,98,500/- treating it as capital gain on sale of immovable property. The impugned addition of Rs. 98,98,500/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, however, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents. There was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, if granted an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1606/Ahd/2025 Sejal Jain Amin Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 07.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 07.10.2025 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "