PRAVINBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, NADIAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was null and void due to the non-issuance and non-service of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue failed to provide any evidence of such notice being served.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in agricultural activity, did not file an income tax return as his income was below taxable limits. However, upon information of cash and term deposits, the Assessing Officer reopened the case. The assessee sold agricultural land, but the AO treated the cash portion of the sale consideration as income not received for consideration.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid in the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 56(2)(vii)(a),Section 271(1)(c),Section 210,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 148,Section 142(2),Section 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi21 citing367 ITR 682 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while sustaining the addition of Rs. 36,29,000/- on account of sale consideration of agriculture land, and therefore it requires to be deleted 02 That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and Ld. A.O has accepted that the a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
