LILABEN SOLANKI,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 398/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2019-20Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to furnish details, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments, ensuring no prejudice to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed an addition of Rs. 9,30,000 as undisclosed capital gain for AY 2019-20. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to submit necessary documents despite repeated notices and also failed to do so before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and subsequent assessment proceedings were valid. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of undisclosed capital gain when the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. 3. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence for a de-novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 156,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR
Hearing: 08.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1.

Notice issued u/s.148 dated 25.07.2024 is bad in law as the same is issued without acquiring valid jurisdiction and accordingly, order Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– passed u/s.144B r.w.s 147 dated 29.02.2024 and demand notice issued u/s.156 are bad in law for want of issuance of valid notice u/s.148.

2.

Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.9,30,000/- being alleged undisclosed capital gain without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.

3. On going through the record, we find that notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on 24.04.2024, 02.05.2025, 13.05.2024, 24.05.2024 & 10.06.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A), requesting the assessee to furnish a detailed submission to substantiate its claim. Despite sufficient time given, the assessee failed to respond to the above notices and not submit any substantial document in support of the sale consideration of the property. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidence in support of sale consideration of the property even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation/evidence submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →