CHETNA KANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 172/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit replies to notices from both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present details.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) that confirmed the Assessing Officer's actions regarding issuing notices and computing total income. The grounds raised include denial of opportunity, illegal notices, and incorrect classification of capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and whether the capital gains were correctly treated as short-term.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

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

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr DR
Hearing: 17.04.2025Pronounced: 24.04.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Chetna Kantilal Patel, Deputy Commissioner of Vs. 6, Manichandra Society -2, Income-tax, Sun & Step, T.V. Tower Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Nr. Surdhara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380052 [PAN : AKGPP 3859 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 20.11.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:-

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an Ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. Hence the same being Chetna Kantilal Patel Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed.

2.

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be cancelled.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in passing an Ex parte order under Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 rws 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed.

4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the total income at Rs.65,00,000/- holding that the assessee has sold the immovable property Flat No.503 to Jalpa Patel vide deed dtd.21.11.2017 holding that the assessee has got possession on 01.03.2017 and sold the same within 9 months of getting possession. He thereby erred in making addition of consideration amount under the head short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains. He further erred in taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.

5.

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered fact that the immovable property sold by the appellant has been received by the assessee against the Flat No.B- 6 which was purchased and allotted to her in 1982-83 but on account of certain legal and technical glitches document for purchase was not executed at that relevant time. Thereafter all the Flat owners of the Dev Apartment jointly entered into the Development agreement with developers Yashvi Construction for redevelopment of their flats. Hence the flat so allotted and thereafter sold by the appellant should be treated as long term Chetna Kantilal Patel Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– capital asset and hence the appellant should be given benefit of cost inflation Index while computing the long term capital gain.”

3.

On going through the record, we find that the notices u/s.250 were issued on 10.05.2024, 17.05.2024, 05.06.2024, 16.07.2024 and 08.11.2024 requesting the assessee to submit necessary documents / clarification. However, in pursuance to the same, the assessee failed to submit any reply and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A), as ex-parte. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that given an opportunity, all the details/ clarification/ explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. We also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer, hence in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities from time to time without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →