ABDUL AZIZ,DUDU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), LAL KOTHI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1025/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Abdul Aziz through L/H Abdul Hakim,
Karim Manzil
Opp.-Rangmanch, Dudu cuke
Vs.
The ITO,
Ward-7(3),
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DBKPA4053F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 19/03/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 13/05/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated
04.06.2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ in short ld. CIT(A)/NFAC)], for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. The impugned order u/s 147/144 dated 03.12.2019 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of juri iction, barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the Abdul Aziz thr. L/H Abdul Hakim, Dudu
2
same may kindly be quashed.
The CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts of the case in not admitting additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule-46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,75,600/- on account of Long term capital gain on the entire sale consideration of agricultural land, which was not a capital asset as per the Income Tax Act, made by the AO.”
Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records arethat the appellant had not filed his return for AY 2012-13 as he did not have any taxable income. Notice u/s 148 was issued in the case, on the basis of information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs.24,00,000/- which had been valued by the Sub-