SHAILESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 October 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was ex-parte and the addition was made on the entire sale consideration instead of capital gains. Since the merits were not decided by the CIT(A), the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to provide details to the AO regarding sale consideration of land, leading to the entire sale amount being treated as income. The AO also believed the assessee failed to disclose income from plots within a specific limit from the municipality.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of entire sale consideration as income was justified without considering capital gains, and whether the AO's ex-parte order was valid without proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH&

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 25/10/2021

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

We have heard the parties, and perused the relevant materials available on record.

3.

It appears that before the Ld. AO the assessee has not complied in spite of being served with number of notices. Ultimately sale consideration of the land to the tune of Rs. 20,55,000/- has been treated as income for the year under consideration in the absence of any details and/or document made available by the assessee before him which was, in turn, affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Additionally the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the appellant failed to disclose income of this transaction for plots falling as within two kilometers limit from the outer limit of Sanand Municipality. The validity of the - 2 - Shaileshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel vs. ITO A.Y. 2010-11 notice issued under Section 148 dated 29.03.2017 has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on merit.

4.

When the matter was taken up by us none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought for. It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal on technical ground. However, the Ld. AO made addition on the entire sale consideration; such order was passed ex-parte since no compliance was made by the assessee. However, the addition could have been made by the Ld. AO only on the capital gain earned by the assessee.

It further appears from the impugned order that the appellant has not agitated the issue on merit before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of addition made by the Ld. AO. Before us the appellant has pressed the issue on merit too.

Since the merit of the matter has not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) it would be the fair to set aside the issue to the file of the authorities below. As we find that the order of additions made by the Ld. AO is an ex-parte one and the full fact order on the basis of determination of capital earned by the assessee has not been verified at the level of AO, we find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO to reconsider the same upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass a reasoned orders in accordance with law in view of the observation made hereinabove.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/10/2021

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →