JAGDISHSINH BHAGWANSINH MAHIDA,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 13.09.2024
passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee only on the ground that no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules.
Jagdishsinh Bhagwansinh Mahida Vs.ACIT
Asst. Year : 2012-13
- 2–
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in passing order u/s 144 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition to the income of the assessee under the head of capital gains although land sold by assessee is not a capital asset.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.63,37,865/- as undisclosed long term capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act 1961. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives income from salary, interest, remuneration as well as income from agricultural activities. For the impugned year, the Assessing Officer was in possession of an information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 29,40,000/- and the value considered by the Sub-