SURESH DURGAPRASAD AGRAWAL,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER, JALNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to dispose of the issue afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed 450 days late, but the delay was condoned. The core issue was the addition of Rs. 20,05,360/- on account of long-term capital gain made by the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The need for a fresh assessment after providing adequate hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad on 30-12-2015 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07.
This appeal is time barred by 450 days. The assessee has filed a condonation application with affidavit giving the reasons for the delay. I am satisfied with the same. The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.20,05,360/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain.
I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessment order was passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR contended that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of presenting his case before the AO. It was, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be accorded to the assessee to represent his case. In view of the above factual background of the extant case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the AO with a direction to dispose of the issue afresh on merits as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence to support his point of view in the fresh assessment. I order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2022.
(R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 21st March, 2022 Satish
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026