KANGIBHAI NAGAJIBHAI MAKWANA,DEESA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , PALANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 66/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order was a procedural irregularity and not a fatal flaw, as the DIN was generated and communicated separately. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return for AY 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about the sale of an immovable property, treating it as long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is invalid due to the omission of DIN, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, SR-DR
Hearing: 07.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 17.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return for A.Y. 2012-13. The AO had received an information that the assessee, as a co-owner, had sold an immovable property during the year for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000,00/-, the stamp duty value of which was Rs.3,73,32,000/-. In the case of another co-owner Shri Tejabhri Rabari, the matter was referred to the DVO who had determined the value of the

ITA No.66/Ahd/2024 Kangibhai Nagajibhai Makwana Vs ITO, AY- 2012-13 2 property at Rs. 2,86,21,000/-. On the basis of this information, the AO had concluded that the assessee had derived long-term capital gain of Rs. 94,94,170/- during the year which had escaped assessment. Accordingly, the proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act was initiated by the AO and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2019. Before the AO, the assessee had contended that the property sold during the year was an agricultural land which was not exigible to capital gain tax. However, the AO did not agree to the contention of the assessee as the agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural land by the Collector, Banaskantha on 15.10.2011. Accordingly, the AO had made addition for LTCG in the hands of the assessee and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 13.11.2019 at total income of Rs. 94,94,170/-.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as not maintainable for no-prosecution by applying the order of Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320, without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 5. The assessee has also taken additional grounds which are as under: 1. Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated, 13.11.2019 is bad in law for want of Document Identification Number on the body of the assessment

ITA No.66/Ahd/2024 Kangibhai Nagajibhai Makwana Vs ITO, AY- 2012-13 3 order as per the Circular No. 19 of 2019 and accordingly order passed by the Assessing officer being contrary to mandate issued by CBDT is nullity. 2. The challenge to assessment order being a legal challenge is being taken up before the Hon’ble ITAT on the basis of the well laid down ratio by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case National Thermal Power Co Ltd. Vs. CIT – 229 ITR 383 (SC). The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing.

6.

We will first adjudicate the additional grounds taken by the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that document identification number (DIN) was not mentioned in the body of the assessment order and, therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 13.11.2019 was null and void. The matter was inquired from the Department and the Ld. SR-DR vide his letter dated 21.01.2025 had enclosed the report of the AO as per which DIN No. was duly generated and separately communicated to the assessee. A copy of communication sent to the assessee in this regard has also been brought on record which is reproduced below:

ITA No.66/Ahd/2024 Kangibhai Nagajibhai Makwana Vs ITO, AY- 2012-13 4 7. It is thus found that the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 13.11.2019 and the intimation letter informing the DIN was also issued on the same date. Merely because the AO did not mention the DIN in the body of the order, the assessment order cannot be invalid for this reason. The DIN was duly generated and communicated to the assessee vide separate intimation letter of the same date and this fact has not been denied. The non-mentioning of DIN in the assessment order was a mere irregularity and a procedural lapse. The assessment order cannot be held as invalid only because of this omission, as stipulated u/s. 292B of the Act. Therefore, the additional grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.

8.

On the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that no compliance could be made before him and the matter was not adjudicated by him on merits. He, therefore, requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

9.

Per contra, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, the Ld. SR-DR had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

10.

We have considered the request of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as four opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made on any of the occasion. The assessee has also not explained the reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). When the

ITA No.66/Ahd/2024 Kangibhai Nagajibhai Makwana Vs ITO, AY- 2012-13 5

appeal was filed by the assessee, it was his duty to watch the affairs before the Ld. CIT(A) and make compliance. The assessee was certainly negligent in the matter. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, which should be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity to the assessee to make compliance. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and comply before the Ld. CIT(A). In case the assessee does not make compliance in the course of set aside appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits on the basis of the materials available on record.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 15/05/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 15th May, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy) आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →