SHRI. INDERJIT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/ASR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 December 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to decide afresh after considering the date of acquisition of the property and other relevant details to be furnished by the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO and supply all necessary information.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed long-term capital gains based on information from the Investigation Wing. The assessee failed to provide details of property acquisition to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of undisclosed long-term capital gains was justified without proper verification of property acquisition details. Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI MANISH BOARAD

For Appellant: Shri P. N. Arora, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Inderjit Singh, CIT/DR
1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘hereinafter called CIT(A)’) order no. CIT-1/JAL/10194/2017-18 order dated 22/03/2019 arising out of assessment order dated 18/12/2017.

2 . A.Y. 2010-11 2. The Assessee has taken solely that lower authority has grossly erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- on account of so-called undisclosed long term capital gain.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income. Thereafter, his case for scrutiny for assessment year 2010-11 was selected u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing (sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1,68,00,000/- and after recording the satisfaction, Ld. A.O. issued notice to the assessee but none appeared pursuance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since, there was no co- operation at the end of the assessee, Ld. A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- on the basis of information and documents were forwarded by the Investigation Wing of the department.

4.

Thereafter, assesee preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and during the proceedings before the lower authorities, assessee did not provide details of cost of acquisition of the properties and it was not known to the lower authorities whether properties were acquired by the assessee before 01.04.1991 are not. Since no details of acquisition of properties were filed by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer.

5.

Now assessee has come before us. At the outset, Ld. A.R. requested case may kindly be set aside to the AO as assessee is a farmer and his income was below the tax limit and he was not aware about the Income Tax proceedings. Therefore he could not file the relevant details before the lower authorities.

6.

Thus, in the interest of justice, we set aside this matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to decide this matter afresh after considering the date of 3 . A.Y. 2010-11 acquisition of the property and relevant details to be furnished by the assessee on which basis case to be adjudicated. Needless to mention here that assessee shall cooperate with the Ld. A.O. and shall supply all the relevant detail and information for speedy disposal of the case. Thereafter Ld. A.O. shall decide the matter as per law.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 03- 12- 2021

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →