SURENDER KUMAR SANGHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO 3(5), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1220/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the observation of the CIT(A) that no documents were furnished was against the record, as 5 documents were uploaded by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an assessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, observing that the assessee failed to furnish any information or documents. The assessee contended that documents were indeed uploaded.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-furnishing of documents when the assessee had uploaded them online.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 50C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 26/03/2025Pronounced: 27/03/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

On 29.07.2024, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhipassed order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, relating to the assessment year 2011-12, and thereby upheld the assessment order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer.

Surender Kumar Sanghi vs. ITO 2. Vide abovesaid assessment order, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,64,330/-, by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act, and calculating short term capital gain of the equal amount, having regard to sale of immovable property by the assessee.

3.

When the assessment order was challenged before Learned CIT(A), said appeal came to be dismissed, while observing that the assessee had failed to furnish any information or documents.

4.

Argument heard. File perused. CONTENTIONS 5. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the above said observations made by Learned CIT(A) that the assessee did not furnish any information or documents is against record. In this regard, Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has referred to page 9 of the paper book, and pointed out that on 20.05.2024, the assessee uploaded 5 documents, on the portal of Income Tax Department.

6.

Ld. DR for the department, when confronted with the above said information uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, has not disputed the said submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant. The information and documents were so uploaded in response to the notice dated 13.05.2024 issued by Learned CIT(A), NFAC.

Surender Kumar Sanghi vs. ITO 7. When it stands established that 5 documents were uploaded on behalf of the appellant, on the portal of the department, we find merit in the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee that the observation made in para 5.7 of the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A) is against record.

8.

In the given situation, we have no option, but to set aside the impugned order, and restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, in accordance with law. Result 9. In view of the above findings, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee before Learned CIT(A), NFAC is restored to its original number for decision afresh, in accordance with law, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2025.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →