BABULAL AMBALAL PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4 (PRESENT WARD-1), MEHSANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1495/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 January 2025AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sent various emails with written submissions and documents to the concerned Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). However, both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without considering these submissions and documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee would be given a due opportunity to present their case on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of whether the property was agricultural land or whether the addition was justified, as the case was being remanded for fresh adjudication. The operative direction was to allow the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Babulal Ambalal Patel, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 2,87,164/- on account of long-term capital gains from the sale of immovable property. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after observing that the assessee had sold property valued at Rs. 34,80,500/-. The assessee did not respond to the AO's request for details. In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte. The assessee contended that submissions and documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) but were not considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal of the assessee, despite the submission of documentary evidence and written submissions, thereby failing to consider the same as per the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,87,164/- made on account of capital gains, when the property sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset, as per the contentions of the assessee? 3. Whether the Ld. AO erred in passing an order invoking the provisions of Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, when the assessee had duly filed details during the assessment proceedings? Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order ignoring the submissions and documentary evidence filed. - The property sold was agricultural land, not a capital asset, hence not liable for capital gains. - The Ld. AO wrongly invoked Section 144 read with Section 147 as details were filed during assessment. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the issues raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.01.2025Pronounced: 15.01.2025

(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Babulal Ambalal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 23-A, Milkamdar Society, Ward-4, Mehsana Nr. Vadharia Char Rasta, Kalol, (Present Jurisdiction-Ward-1, Gandhinagar-382721 Mehsana) [PAN No.AEFPP3138K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.R. Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR 08.01.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2025 O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Gurugram vide order dated 18.06.2024 passed for A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and on law in passing an Ex- parte order and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. It is submitted that though the submission and documentary evidences were filed before Ld. CIT(Appeal), he has not considered the same for the best reasons known to him. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeal) ignoring the evidences filed before him be quashed and set a side and addition confirmed of Rs. 2,87,164/- be deleted accordingly.

2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 2,87,164/- made on account of capital gain towards sale of property. It is submitted that the relevant details and documents were filed before lower authorities justifying Babulal Ambalal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– that the property sold during the year being a Agriculture land is not a capital asset and is not liable for capital gain. It is therefore submitted that the addition made of Rs 2,87,164/- on account of Long term Capital gain in hands of Appellant is completely incorrect and illegal and the same be deleted in the interest of justice. The same please be held accordingly.

3. The Learned AO has erred in passing the order invoking the provisions of Section 144 rws 147 of the Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has duly filed details during course of assessment proceeding and thus there is no question of passing ex- parte order. In view of this, the order passed by Ld. AO wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 144 of the Act be quashed and set a side and the impugned addition made be deleted.

4.

The Order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.

5.

Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that for the impugned year under consideration the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,51,930/-. As per information available with the Assessing Officer, he observed that assessee had sold immovable property valued at Rs. 34,80,500/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the property in question was ancestral land and the assessee was asked to furnish details of property sold with proper evidence. However, no response was received from the assessee. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer computed the long- term capital gains on sale of above property at Rs. 34,47,347/- and worked out the assessee’s share at Rs. 2,87,164/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,87,164/- was added to the income of the assessee, as long-term capital gains.

Babulal Ambalal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3– 4. In appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account on non-appearance with the following observations:

“5.4 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the AO are incorrect. As stated above no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the assertions made by appellant in its statement of facts and ground of appeal have been filed during the appellate proceedings to disprove the finding of the AO and to show as to how the AO is incorrect in law or facts in making addition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no infirmity is observed in the order of the AO. Thus I find no merit in this ground of appeal taken by the appellant and accordingly the same is rejected/dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed written submissions vide email dated 25.07.2020 to Ld. CIT(A) and had also furnished documents to the concerned Assessing Officer vide emails dated 25.09.2018 and 11.10.2018 in the said emails various document and written submissions were furnished to the lower authorities, which were omitted to be considered by them while passing the impugned order.

6. On going through the records of the case, and the copies of emails sent by the assessee to the concerned authorities, we observe that the assessee had sent various emails to the concerned Assessing Officer as well as before Ld. CIT(A), however, both the orders were passed on ex- parte basis without taking into consideration the written submission / details / documents submitted by the assessee in support of his case. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case on merits.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 15/01/2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →