HETA RAWAL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI SHAILESH INDUPRASAD RAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 18.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 07.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.89,32,010/- which was subsequently revised to income of Rs.89,84,450/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under Heta Rawal LH of Lt. Shri Shailesh Induprasad Rawal vs DCIT Page 2 of 5

CASS. In the return, the assessee had disclosed Long Term Capital Gain
(LTCG) of Rs.75,83,600/- after claiming indexed cost of acquisition and exemption under Section 54F of the Act. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had treated the sale consideration of the asset as income from business and accordingly deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act as well as deduction for indexed cost of acquisition was denied. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.01.2016 at a total income of Rs.1,67,53,350/-.
3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, 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.
4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: -
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in issuing notice u/s.250 in the name of dead person as the assessee was demised on 13.08.2017, which was intimated to the Id. CIT (A)-5, Vadodara on 24.02.2020 during the appellate proceedings. The notice so issued is illegal and invalid in law. The order passed consequent to such illegal/invalid notice is prayed to be quashed.
2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside.
3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has further erred in law and in facts in not considering the detailed submissions made by the appellant physically before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara along with necessary documents/ evidences and paper book on different dates i.e.
4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in (a) not granting the exemption u/s. 54F amounting to Rs.62,55,086/- claimed by the appellant,
(b) not allowing the Indexed Cost of Acquisition of Rs.47,13,814/- as claimed by the appellant,
(c) taxing the profit of Rs.1,53,52,500/- as business income.
(d) treating the income of Rs.77,68,900/- offered under the head
'Capital Gains' by the appellant in the return of income filed as profit/gains earned under the head "Business or Profession', and accordingly making an addition of an amount of Rs.77,68,900/- treating the same as unexplained profit/gains earned under the head ‘Business or Profession’. The addition of Rs.77,68,900/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted.
5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter. amend, substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.”
5. Shri Manish J. Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without examining the merits of the grounds taken before him. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee had expired on 13.08.2017 and for that reason no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the Legal Heir of the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
PBN/*
Copies to: (1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent

(3)
The PCIT

(4)
The CIT(A)

(5)
Departmental Representative

(6)
Guard File
By orderE COPY