RANJITSINH LAXMANSINH GAYOL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The National Faceless Appeal Centre, has further erred in not considering the remand report of JAO that property bears the character of HUF and income arising therefrom is taxable in the hand of HUF only and not in the hand of individual. Assessment Year 2012-13

The National Faceless Appeal Centre, ought to have considered the fact that as per the revenue record of the Revenue Department, the character of the property is HUF one and therefore, cannot be taxed in the hands of individual.

The National Faceless Appeal Centre, ought not to have set aside the assessment in the interest of natural justice.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

As per the information, it was observed that the assessee along with the co-owners sold land at Vavol, District Gandhingar for Rs. 3,97,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 14-12-2011. The assessee did not file return of income for assessment year 2012-13. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was issued and served on 20-02- 2015. The assessee did not file any details and also has not filed any return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148. The Assessing Officer therefore observed that the assessee sold land along with other six co-owners for Rs. 3,97,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 14-12-2011 and received share at 1/7 of Rs. 9,97,00,000/- that is Rs. 56,71,430/-. Since no share was clarified, the Assessing Officer presumed that each of the holder were having equal share i.e. 1/7 each and thus the assessee received Rs. 56,71,430/-. Thus, the assessee has not offered any tax on capital gain generated from the sale consideration of Rs. 56,71,430/-. Since the assessee has not submitted anything, the Assessing Officer held that for the principle of natural justice the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981 has taken on the material available for the respective property as per valuation of the DVO, the Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad. In the report dated 02-03-2015, the DVO decided the value at 125 sq. mtr. considering the decision of I.T.A No. 2154/Ahd/2024

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and written submissions dated 02-05-2025 was placed before us. Therefore, we are proceeding with the matter and take it on record the written submissions filed by the assessee.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee has filed written submissions whereby challenged the validity of notice u/s. 148 and invalid proceedings u/s. 147/148. After going through the records, the notice issued u/s. 148 is properly issued and the proceedings u/s. 147 has been conducted as per the Income Tax Act. Hence, the said submission as well as ground no. 1 is dismissed. As regards ground on merit i.e. ground nos. 2 and 3, it appears that the assessee was not able to respond to any of the notices as he was not aware about the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. As regards the observation of the CIT(A), the contention of the assessee quoted at page no. 13 of the order of the CIT(A)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,