DINESH KUMAR,BEHROR vs. ITO BEHROR, BEHROR
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 85,00,800/- on 27.12.2012. The case was reopened under Section 147, but the assessee did not furnish a return of income or respond to notices. The assessee later claimed the land was purchased, not sold, and that Section 56(2) was not attracted.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding the purchase of land and the non-attraction of Section 56(2) warranted further examination. The Tribunal also noted issues with the communication of the remand report to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made on account of sale of immovable property is justified, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed in communicating the remand report and notices.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 133(6), 144, 56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
Result
In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose and the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A) is restored to its original number for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant-appellant. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/11/2025.
Sd.- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur
8 ITA No. 919/JPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. ITO fnukad@Dated:- 19/11/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Dinesh Kumar, Behror. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Behror. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 919/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
