AJAYKUMAR JASHVANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1) NOW WARD - 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 639/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing one appeal. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment after imposing a cost, considering a similar case where an addition was deleted. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes with a similar direction for fresh assessment and cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee received a significant amount as a confirming party in a land sale transaction. Despite notices, the assessee failed to respond, leading to ex-parte assessment orders for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15. The assessee also made substantial cash deposits in AY 2014-15, which were not properly explained initially.

What were the issues?

Whether ex-parte assessment orders were justified when the assessee failed to provide details, and whether new evidence filed before the tribunal should be considered with cost.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 131,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

& 640/Ahd/2023 Asst. Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 Ajaykumar Jashvantlal Income Tax Officer Shah Ward-2(2)(1) Now A/2, Vasu Apartment, Vs Ward-2(1)(1), Paliyad Nagar, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013 Gujarat PAN: ABJPS1271K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri M S Chhajed, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 18-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

These two appeals are filed by the Assessee as against the ex- parte appellate orders dated 22.06.2023 and 15-06-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte assessment orders passed under section 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2014-15.

& 640/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15 Page No 2 Ajaykumar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ITO

2. There is a delay of two days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 639/Ahd/2024. The delay is due to non-verification of ITBA Portal by the assessee. On noticing the exparte appellate order, assessee filed the above appeal with the two days delay. Thus the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2.

Brief facts of the case in Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee said to have received an amount of Rs. 1,53,33,458/- as a confirming party in the sale transaction of land between Shri Alpeshkumar Chimanlal Patel and M/s. DBS Affordable Home Strategies Ltd. on 22-03-2011 vide two separate Sale Deeds dated 21-03-2011 and 31-03-2011. However the assessee has not responded to the reopening notices and subsequent 142(1) notices issued by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in passing exparte assessment order.

3.

On further appeal also, the assessee has not furnished any details thereby ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that one another confirming party namely Shri Prakash K. Shah on the very same sale transaction wherein his Assessing Officer deleted the addition based on the statement of oath made u/s. 131 of the Act by the Director of M/s. DBS Affordable Home Strategies Ltd. Following the same, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is liable to be deleted and placed on record, the assessment order dated 28-12-2017 passed in the case of Prakash K Shah and the Affidavit of the Director of M/s. DBS Affordable Home Strategies Ltd. & 640/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Ajaykumar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ITO

4.

Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the above documents on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the reassessment proceedings as well as before the appellate proceedings. Therefore the new documents if at all to be entertained, heavy cost be imposed on the assessee.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the documents are filed for the first time before this Tribunal. We hereby impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Income Tax Department for not furnishing the same before the Lower Authorities. On payment of cost and production of challan within 15 days of receipt of this order, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh assessment order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary documents in the set aside proceedings. for Asst. Year 2014-15

7.

For the Asst. Year 2014-15, assessee filed its Return of Income on 26-06-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,130/-. Based on AIR information, the assessee found to have made cash deposit of Rs. 20,34,000/- in three banks on various dates. When the assessee was issued show cause notice to explain the details in spite of service of notices, the assessee failed to respond, which & 640/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15 Page No 4 Ajaykumar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ITO resulted in passing exparte assessment order and determining the assessed income as Rs.24,58,130/-.

8.

On first appeal before Ld. CIT(A), no evidence was filed by the assessee, therefore the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the cash deposit of Rs. 20,34,000/- was out of cash withdrawal of the assessee and opening cash balance. Copy of the cash book annexed in Paper Book as additional evidence. Therefore requested to entertain the new additional evidences.

9.

Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, the assessee having not filed the detail before the Lower Authorities, heavy cost may be imposed.

10.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the documents are filed for the first time before this Tribunal. We hereby impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Income Tax Department for not furnishing the same before the Lower Authorities. On payment of cost and production of challan within 15 days of receipt of this order, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh assessment order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary documents in the set aside proceedings.

& 640/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15 Page No 5 Ajaykumar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ITO

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →