SHIVPRAKASH RAMCHARAN SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal form provided details regarding the sale consideration receipts that required verification. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and verification of facts on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property in AY 2012-13. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information that the property's stamp value exceeded the declared sale consideration, leading to additions under Section 50C and for unoffered capital gains. The assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 due to non-compliance, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and the additions made under Section 50C and for capital gains not offered were valid, and the ex-parte assessment due to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER
Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17-10- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in reopening the case u/s 147 of the act.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs 30,09,925/- being capital gain not offered for tax.
Shivprakash Ramcharan Sharma, A.Y. 2012-13 3. That the Ld (IT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 11,11,000/- u/s 50C of the act. Total tax effect Rs. 12,35,977/-”
The assessee is an individual and filed return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 19-03-2023 declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,040/-. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee sold immoveable property of Rs. 30,09,925/- on 15-09-2011. However, the jantri value of the property or the stamp value of the property is Rs. 41,20,925/- and the assessee paid the stamp duty of Rs. 2,02,000/-. The Assessing Officer held that it attracts section 50C of the Act. Based on the said information, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29-03-2009. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not make any compliances and hence assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09-12-2019 determining the total assessed income at Rs. 43,07,965/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,11,000/- on account of difference of sale consideration u/s. 50C of the Act and Rs. 30,09,925/- on account of capital gain not offered.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Shivprakash Ramcharan Sharma, A.Y. 2012-13 5. At the time of hearing, the assessee filed adjournment application to its representative. Since the issue is related to the ex-parte order both at the level of CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer, we are taking up this appeal and rejected the adjournment application.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee though has not filed any documentary evidences or clarifications regarding the difference of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 11,11,000/- u/s. 50C of the Act, the assessee in Form 35 filed before the CIT(A) has mentioned that as per the sale deed, the initial consideration was fixed at Rs. 11,11,000/- first part of such consideration was received by the assessee on 23-01-2023 of Rs. 1,75,000/-. Further, consideration was also received between 23-01-2003 and 29-05-2011 as is discernible from the sale deed considered by the Assessing Officer. These issues need to be verified and hence the issue is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and verification of the issues on merit. The assessee is directed to file the relevant details before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) will adjudicate the issue as per Income Tax Act verifying the details given by the assessee. There is a delay of 431 days for which the assessee has filed the affidavit for delay condonation and the reason stated therein appears to be
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03-07-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 03/07/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026