SOMABHAI MOHANDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PALANPUR, PALANPUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated
24.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 72 days.
The delay of 72 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1.1
The order passed u/s. 250 on 24.09.2024 for A.Y.2012-13 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.10,33,012 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
Asst.Year –2012-13
- 2–
2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions.
3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences.
1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the reopening u/s 147 of the Act.
2 That in the facts and/or in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the reopening u/s 147 of the Act.
1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.10,33,012/- being share in property.
2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.10,33,012/- being share in property.
3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition when the appellant has clearly proved through documentary evidence that his actual investment was only Rs.8,26,410/- and not Rs.10,33,012/-.
1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing.
2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory in the new regime of Faceless appeal process.
3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via video conferencing.”
The brief facts of the case are that based on information available from the Income Tax System (ITS), the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the year under consideration for a total consideration of ₹82,64,025/- along with other co- owners. The Sub-