SMT. KALAWATI P. JAISWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2572/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 January 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no merit in the grounds raised. The assessee's representative could not support the grounds regarding the AO's jurisdiction and the treatment of capital gains.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's action in reopening the assessment and treating Long Term Capital Gain as Short Term Capital Gain. The assessee also challenged the disallowance of indexation benefit and levy of interest and penalty.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the reopening of assessment and the correct classification of capital gains, including the entitlement to indexation benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘C’

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

Hearing: 29/01/2019Pronounced: 29/01/2019

आदेश/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA- AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Ahmedabad (CIT(A)) dated 26/07/2016 arising from the assessment order dated 29/02/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under :-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147

IT No. 2572/Ahd/2016 A.Yr. 2011-12 2 of the Act.Under the facts and circumstances of the case the action ofreopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on facts. The present proceedings, therefore, are required tobe quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating Long Term CapitalGain from the sale of property as Short Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly has erred in law and on the facts ofthe case in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making additionof Rs.67,00,000/- on account of disallowance of indexation benefit. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred ingrossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have beenconsidered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

5.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B /C of the Act.

6.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act.”

When the matter was called for hearing the Ld. A.R. for the 3. assessee could not support its grievances for lack of jurisdiction of the AO under section 147 of the Act in any manner. No arguments were advanced in this regard. Consequently ground No. 1 of the assessees appeal is dismissed.

4.

As regards ground Nos. 2 & 3, it transpired in the course of the hearing that the issue is parimateria with the similar issue cropped up in the case of relative PannalalBaijnathJaiswal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1142/Ahd/2015 order dated 01/12/2017. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee could not controvert the aforesaid fact. Thus in the light of view taken in PannalalBaijnathJaiswal, we do not see any merit in the grievances of the assessee in this case as well. Consequently ground nos. 2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

IT No. 2572/Ahd/2016 A.Yr. 2011-12 3 5. Ground No. 4 is general in nature and does not call for any separate adjudication.

6.

Ground Nos. 5 & 6 are consequential and that does not call for adjudicationat this stage.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

[Order pronounced in the Court on 29th January, 2019.]

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/01/2019 TRUE COPY आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 3. संबं�धतआयकरआयु�त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →