SHANKARJI GABHAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only on the basis information that the assessee has made sale of immovable property. Hence the same being illegal and bad in law requires to be quashed.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be cancelled.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.14,51,225/- in respect of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the 1.T. Act treating the immovable property being agricultural land sold by the appellant as non agricultural land.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing an order without granting hearing through the Video Conferencing as requested by the appellant vide reply dtd.20.02.2023. In view of the same the assessment which has been completed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant being against the Principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the ground for levying fees of Rs.10,000/- u/s.234F of the I.T. Act, 1961 by A.O. for alleged default in furnishing return of income do not call for separate adjudication as the said order is separately appealable without considering the fact that the Return of Income has been filed by the appellant in time in due compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.

In this case the assessment has been completed u/s.144B r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not complied fully to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, which lead to summarily completion of the assessment. Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3–

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, it was pleaded that the assessee has sought opportunity of video conferencing before the Ld.CIT(A), vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and prayed that given an opportunity, due compliances will be made before the Ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld.CIT.DR objected to the prayer of Ld.Counsel for the assessee. We find that no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, the matter is hereby remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for virtual hearing and then pass an order denovo.

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

अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.