PRAHLADBHAI KASHIRAM PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing order without discussing the grounds on merits.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing order by 2

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- on account of sale of immovable property.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming assessment order without serving the notice physically even when the assessee was not registered on the income tax portal.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.36,00,000/- without verifying that the assessee has sold the immoveable property only in the capacity of power of attorney holder.

That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of sales price instead of following basic accounting principle to deduct the purchase value from sale value for net addition.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming order passed by juri ictions! Assessing Officer continuing the proceedings even after the case was transferred to NFeAC, assessment unit.

That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.

There is a delay of 122 days in filing the present appeal. A separate affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the assessee is an old/aged person of 74 years. That he was illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies and procedures of income tax laws. He did not have any email_id also. Therefore, he was not aware of the passing of the order by the ld.CIT(A). Even his tax consultant did not inform him in this regard. 3

The ld.counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even there was delay of 107 days in filing first appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Similar reason have been assigned for delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), and even there was non-representation before the AO also.

The ld.AR has submitted that the assessee has fair case on merits as the AO has made addition in the hands of the assessee on account of 1/4th share of the assessee in the property sold by the assessee along with other three co-owners. He has submitted that the AO without assigning any reasons has made the addition of the entire sale consideration received by the assessee of Rs.40.00 lakhs. The ld.AR submitted that even the assessee is not the owner of the property, rather the assessee has sold the property as power of attorney of one of the co-owner of the property, and he, therefore, submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.AO.

Considering the rival submissions, in my view, the interests of justice will be well served, if, the assessee be given a further opportunity to present his case before the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment afresh on this issue.

Needless to say that the AO will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The AO will serve the notice to the assessee on the email-id as mentioned in Form No.36 filed before us which is “hardikvora.ca@gmail.com”. It will not be 4

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.