Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) upholding additions made by the AO. The assessee had failed to provide sufficient details and explanations to the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the opportunities given by the lower authorities. However, to provide a chance for a de novo assessment, the matter was restored to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in upholding additions and disallowances without accepting the assessee's submissions, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
54EC, 80D, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2021-2022.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 34,57,473/- made by the A.O. for alleged under reporting long term capital gain in as much as that the long term capital gain computed as per report of registered valuer in as much as that the cost of acquisition computed by the assessee based on valuer's report ought to have been accepted. Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 2–
2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- being investment made u/s 54EC out of the advance amount received on the sale of property without appreciating and considering the facts of the assessee and the disallowance made is submitted to be erroneous factually as well as legally.
3. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,125/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80D of the Act on the ground of non submission of documentary evidence of mediclaim policy for the impugned amount.
4. He has erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234A of Rs. 1,80,460/-, Rs. 6,69,612/-u/s 234B and Rs. 1,18,353/- u/s 234C of the income tax Act. 5. The return income of the assessee ought to have been accepted without any variation. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and or modify any ground of appeal.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate its claim. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that assessee even failed to submit substantial documents before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who is the primary authority for de novo assessment. The assessee shall submit all Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2025. S /- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT (True C () Ahmedabad; Dated 12.12.2025 MV