SANJAYSINH PRAVINSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5), BHAVNAGAR
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 28.10.2024 passed for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 13 days.
The delay of 13 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. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in assuming the juri iction u/s 147 of the Act.
Asst.Year –2011-12
- 2–
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in passing the order u/s 144 of the Act.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the addition made by the AO towards short term capital gain amounting to Rs.26,02,000/-, holding it to be the adventure in the nature of trade.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in changing the head of income without affording any opportunity to the Appellant. Under the facts of the case, the transaction in question was a sole transaction and thus CIT(A) ought not to have changed the head of income.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not appreciating that the land in question was an agriculture land within the meaning of S.2(14) of the Act, and thus outside the purview of S.45 of the Act.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(b), u/s. 271(1)(c) and u/s. 271F of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.”
The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had entered into a registered sale transaction of immovable property during the impugned assessment year, for a consideration of ₹30,92,000/-, but had not filed the return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Based on information from NMS and subsequent verification through the Sub-