KAILASH BHIL,AJMER vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AJMER, AJMER
1
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 175/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shri Kailash Bhil
Village: PIPROLI (THAKRAN)
Tehsil: SARWAR, SHOKALIYA NASIRABAD
Distt: AJMER 302 019 (Raj) cuke
Vs.
The ITO
Ward -2 (3)
Ajmer
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JCJPK 3066 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 09/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 28.01.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13
raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. The impugned order u/s 144/148 dated 03.12.2019 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of juri iction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed.
The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 03.12.2019 are bad in law and on facts of the case,
2
3. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in framing the asst. u/s 144 without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and even without complying with the mandatory statutory requirement of law The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed.
The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without juri iction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/148 dated 03.12.2019 also kindly be quashed.
The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Id. AO without properly considering the cost of conversion of land. The addition so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is contrary to the provision of law and facts of the case and may kindly be deleted in full.
28,40,427/-: The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.
1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee vide letter dated 8-10-2025 has prayed to accept the following modified grounds of appeal. ‘’8. Rs.55,71,875/-.The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.55,71,875/- made by the AO as unexplained short term capital gain on the subjected agricultural property. Hence, the addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted full.’’
3
CIT(A) has party allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
‘’5.2 From the perusal of the remand report, it is evident that Ld AO had information that the appellant has sold immovable property for Rs. 57,21,825/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the case of the appellant was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 28.03.2019 after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority as per law. After examining the evidence available with the AO and finding that return of income is not filed by the appellant, the Ld
AO had come to the prima facie belief that this is a fit case for reopening of the assessment. Thus, there is a clear application of mind by the Ld AO. There is a live link or close nexus between the material obtained and formation of belief. It is not a case where the reasons recorded by the Ld. A.O. are not germane and the Ld.
A.O. wanted to simply verify and make fishing enquiries.
The Ld. A.O. has applied his mind. After the receipt of the information, AO verified the record. Subsequently, reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment u/s 147 Of the Act and approval was sought from the competent authority. Thereafter, the notice u/s 148 was issued. The notice was sent through registered post on 28.03.2019 vide No. ER637829097IN on the address available as per sale deed, since PAN is not mentioned by the appellant in the said sale deed. This amounts to valid service of notice. Further, I find that the appellant has not responded to the several notices Issued by Ld AO
4
SHRI KAILASH BHIL VS ITO, WARD 2(3), AJMER u/s 142(1) and served by registered post and physically served by Inspector. Therefore, I find that the appellant did not cooperate in the assessment proceeding although reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to him. Thus, in my view, the reopening of the assessment is a valid reopening, and Ld AO was justified in completing the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, I find no merit in the argument of the appellant and this ground of the appellant is dismissed.
0 Second ground of the appellant relates to the addition of Rs 55,71,825/- after deduction of Rs 1,50,000/-as cost of acquisition of the land without considering the fact that assessee got it converted to industrial land after incurring expenses. Therefore, it is argued that the acquisition cost has not property considered. During the F.Y. 2011-2012, the assessee has entered in immovable property transactions on 17.11.2011. I find that as per the value adopted by the Sub