MINAKSHI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK
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;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1300/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13
Smt. Minakshi
W/0 Shri Ramlal Bairwa
2211/A, Type 3, Railway Workshop Colony,
Rangpur, Kota- 324 002
Ward-Tonk
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: FLVPM 1132E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 09/07/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 15 /07/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Jaipur -4 dated 27.08.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13
raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal of the appellant ex parte without properly providing opportunity to the appellant for representation of his case. Therefore, impugned
Order for being violative to principle of natural justice deserve to be set aside and quashed.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding u/s 147/148 of the act
2
SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK in absence of the proper reasons of belief of the escapement proceeding so initiated are bad in law and deserve to be quashed summarily.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has legally and factually erred in restricting the development expenditure to Rs. 20,000/- as against Rs. 4,16,666/- claimed by the appellant and had calculated the long-term capital gain and taxing Rs. 17,68,170/- as long-term capital gain without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. Thus, the addition so made is bad in law and the summarily.
4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) had clearly erred in deciding appeal of the assessee without giving a proper opportunity of hearing, Id.
CIT(A) in a cursory and hasty manner had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Thus, on this sole ground alone, Order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to set aside and quashed.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT (A) had passed the Impugned Order in complete violation of principle of natural justice and against the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts of the Country, wherein, the Hon'ble Courts has held that, Order passed in violation of Principle of Natural Justice needs to be set aside and Quashed. Thus, Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be set-aside.
That, impugned order is clearly based on the surmises and conjectures and completely missing the information and material which is sine qua non for passing order u/s 147/148 of the act. Therefore, the impugned order for being arbitrary and illegal deserve to be set aside & quashed.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of ld. AO in adding Rs. 17,68,170/-in the hands of assessee by treating the same as her Long-Term Capital Gain in complete ignorance of the position of law as laid down by various High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in upholding the action of Id. AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.
1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing in spite of notice for hearing of the appeal on 09-07-2017. Consequently the 3 SMT. MINAKSHI VS ITO, WARD -TONK
Bench is left with no alternative but to decide the appeal on merits, ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing ld. DR and after perusal of the materials available on record.
3.1
Brief facts of the case are that during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act in the case of Shri Dinesh Chourasia, R/o
Tonk on 29-10-2019, a sale agreement dated 18-01-2012 was found. It is noted that through this sale agreement, the assessee alongwith her other 5
family members namely Shri Charan Singh, Shri Bharat Singh (brothers),
Smt. Sharda & Angoori (Sisters) and Smt. Phoola (mother) sold their property being land on Khasra No. 6454 measuring 2 bigha 6 bishwas situated in Tonk to Shri Mahendra Bairwa S/o Shri Ramchandra Bairwa R/o
Motibagh, Tonk for total consideration of Rs.1,26,50,000/-. It is also noted that the sale agreement was not got registered with the Sub-