ABDUL GAFFAR SULEMAN CHHAPRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Abdul
Gaffar
Suleman
Chhapra, Andheri Timber Mart,
330, SV Road, Near Amboli Naka,
Opp,
Shabnam
Bldg,
Andheri
West - 400 058, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Income Tax Officer –
24(1)(1), Mumbai,
Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAPC9478N
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
Appellant by :
Shri Piyush Chhajed,AR
Respondent by :
Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Date of Hearing
19.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement
12.03.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated
16.08.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 22.12.2017 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2010-11. P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2010-11
Abdul Gaffar Suleman Chhapra
The grounds of appeal are as under:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 150 days caused by reasonable and sufficient cause for which an affidavit was also filed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in passing an order without providing an opportunity to the appellant to explain why the delay was caused in filing of appeal before the Hon’ CIT(A). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in passing an order without considering the case's merits. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in passing the order without considering the submission of the Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by learned Assessing Officer w.r.t Full addition u/s 50C due to difference in Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value of the Co-owned Ancestral Tenanted & Litigated Property in the Appellant hand solely which needs to be Delete. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Income tax Act 1961 on the Ancestral Property which has many tenants, encumbered property and was in Litigation. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not considering the Clauses and Facts mention in the property Agreement Registered with property